The issue of apostasy is very controversial for every religion and when it comes to Islam, the problem of leaving the faith gets almost the all shades of drama. There is no system of belief that welcomes apostasy as itself but Islam has dual approach to this term. According to positive and progressive Islam, Islam is set of rules and it should search for spiritual connections with people. There is no fear from God and human beings who dont want to accept Islam or who want to leave Islam are free to do it. One of moderate British imams, Ajmal Masroor, believes that apostasy is a free choice and that none should judge none. Unfortunately, there is another side of the coin and regressive backward streams of Islam leading by Shari’ah Law experts and radical imams who preach only about radical punishments for apostates.The spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt,  Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi often states that: “…if not for the threat of murder for anyone who leaves Islam, Islam would not exist today”.

We are usually familiar with the information about the Islam as the fastest growing religion on the West and among Westerners. For example, just in the UK, in the period  between 2001 and 2011, about 40.000 people converted to the faith. According to statistics, 70% of them are white British citizens and 2/3 of them are women. However, there is also an inverted trend – leaving the Islamic Religion by born Muslims. It is not so easy to follow their stories and destinies because such a kind of phenomena is occurring in the shadow of the fear from the feedback of Muslim community and its disapproval and possible violent reactions. There are some data which inform us that 20 to 30% of UK-based Muslims, especially those who are young, consider themselves agnostics or even atheists. Not any of them are enough brave to stand up and to defend their new religious choices, because they are facing with death treats and familial and social abandonment.

Mohammad Fyaz shares the pain of many apostates and the fear of people who left  the Islam, worrying about the revenge of those who dont understand it or who believe they are chosen to punish betrayers. His story reminds of any we heard before but as every destiny, it is unique by itself, as a proof that people still like to judge each others without learning that only God can do that.

Mohammad Fyaz, ex-Muslim from the UK
  1. Mr. Fyaz, how do you consider yourself, as ex-Muslim or as Christian? Sometimes I       think that the fact of being ex-Muslim says all.

I consider myself a former Muslim and now a follower of Jesus

2. When and why did you choose to convert to Christianity?

 I didn’t convert from one to another. I questioned Islam and what I was been taught and the behavior of the Muslim community as well as my own family which also concerned me. It didn’t make sense, Muslims were following a set of religious rules ie Fasting, prayers etc, but this didn’t match up to the way they should be living if Islam was their moral compass. I totally rejected Islam in my teens and later found the truth in Jesus. Nevertheless< I needed to be fair on Islam and look into what I had rejected. The internet opened up a whole new opportunity to dig deeper into what Islam taught and Muhammad’s behavior I also got a English copy of the Quran. To my shock Muhammad wasn’t the moral example to mankind I was taught and led to believe and the Quran was not the masterpiece of divine revelation of God, but Muhammad’s own handy work. Most of it copied from Christian and Jewish scriptures and some pagan belief systems.

3. What were the reactions of your family and did they faced together with you with the negative reactions from the Muslim Community ?

My family have disowned me for the past 29 years. My parents had another son who I have never seen or met. I have lived quietly outside any Muslim community since for my safety.

4. Do you believe that progressive stream in Islam really doesnt advocate violence against apostates?

There is no such thing as progressive Islam. Islam is what it is, Radical and violent in its very nature. We need to separate Muslims and Islam.Moderate Muslims does not mean Moderate Islam, no such thing as moderate Islam.

5.You are very active in social media and in public life of the UK as ex-Muslim. Aren’t you a bit afraid for your safety because of extremists who think you and someone like you should be strictly punished for apostasy?

This threat is not just from so called extremist, Islam and Muhammad are extreme. No Muslim even so called moderate Muslims will condemn Sharia Law for stoning homosexuals or death to apostates. Sharia Law is based on Muhammad’s actions and teachings.At the moment my face is not known and I can walk into any Muslim areas and no one knows who I am. Once I start appearing on main stream television on a regular bases, and once my book is published, my life will be in extreme danger and I will never be able to walk in Muslim areas again. Am I afraid ? Anyone in my situation would be afraid. My family will be my first threat I will have to deal with. When my brothers find out that I have laid bare to the world what my mum did in the house, they will hunt me down to kill me. You have heard of honour killings, well you might have the first ex Muslim killed in Europe based not only on religious grounds but also on family honour. I can deal with family threats or a community threat and I have taken steps to minimise that threat. However if the threat becomes a organised state sponsored threat from a Muslim country or a terrorist organisation such as Al-Qaeda or Islamic State, then the British Government will have to step in and protect my life. But my time is not up until God says it is and he will carry me through

6. I am informed that you are going to publish your book in September which will be available on Amazon, under the name ” Letting love win-How I left Islam and found God”. Why did you choose this title? What did you find in Christianity which you haven’t had in Islam?

I chose this title because it’s a reflection of who Jesus is and how love overcomes hate. What I found in Jesus was the personal loving relationship with God which I did not find in Muhammad. It is also the title of one of my chapters in my book and tells the story on how Letting Love Win changed my life to a life of love and forgiveness

7. What do you think, how public in the UK will react on your book? Do you have some preliminary feedback?

The general public will find the book encouraging and enlightening into the Islamic world and British culture, however Muslims will find some parts of my story blasphemous.

8. Do you participate officially in any organizations of ex-Muslims based in the United Kingdom?

I very much am involved with various groups involving ex Muslims and for security reasons I cannot go into detail

9. What do you think about the demands of some radical imams for Shari’ah law to be implemented?

It’s not just so called radical Imams this the consensus of the majority. To be a good Muslim one must embrace the Sharia Law in its totality

10. As a religious person, you must believe in peace and love. What is your hope for this humanity?

 My hope for the future is for Muslim communities in the west to wake up and stop sleep walking towards a civil war they cannot win. Muslims need to become inclusive and lay aside their agenda to over run whatever western country they live in with Islam. And to practice what they demand and that is freedom of choice.I love Muslims, I love my Pakistani community but I will also challenge them Where they need to be challenged. I do not hate Muslims just because I speak against the Islamic ideology. My wish is that the Muslim communities would look beyond politics or any foreign policy and respect Britain, a country which has given us so much. All too often foreign policy is used as an excuse for terrorist acts in particular when it comes to ISRAEL or American foreign policy. Islam has been on the offensive before the creation of America or the state of ISRAEL. Muslims will come up with excuses and blame anyone or anything but themselves, until they address the problem in its own ideology we will not have peace.. The late four times prime minister of Britain in the 1800’s William Gladstone once held the Quran above his head in Parliament and said ” this is an accursed book as long as it exists there will not be peace…. “.

For more information about Mr. Fyaz’s book and possible contact, do not hesitate to visit the following website:




  1. You’re so interesting! I don’t think I’ve truly read through something like that before.
    So good to find somebody with a few original thoughts on this issue.

    Really.. thanks for starting this up. This website is one thing that is needed
    on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!


      “The Burden Of Freedom”
      By Kris Kristofferson
      I stand on the stairway, my back to the dungeon
      The doorway to freedom so close to my hand
      Voices behind me still bitterly damn me
      For seeking salvation they don’t understand

      Lord, help me to shoulder the burden of freedom
      And give me the courage to be what I can
      And when I am wounded by those who condemn me
      Lord, help me forgive them, they don’t understand

      Their lonely frustration, descending to laughter
      Erases the footprints I leave in the sand
      And I’m free to travel where no one can follow
      In search of the kingdom they don’t understand

      Lord, help me to shoulder the burden of freedom
      And give me the courage to be what I can
      And when I have wounded the last one who loved me
      God, help her forgive me, I don’t understand

      Beware the Pavlovian Gods of Religion!
      Have you ever noticed the ounce of pleasure we get, compared to the ton of pain we get in this life!
      Let me share some of my pain:

      Stephen Foster
      Let us pause in life’s pleasures and count its many tears,
      While we all sup sorrow with the poor;
      There’s a song that will linger forever in my ears;
      Oh Hard times come again no more.

      Tis the song, the sigh of the weary,
      Hard Times, hard times, come again no more
      Many days you have lingered around my cabin door;
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      While we seek mirth and beauty and music light and gay,
      There are frail forms fainting at the door;
      Though their voices are silent, their pleading looks will say
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      Tis the song, the sigh of the weary,
      Hard Times, hard times, come again no more
      Many days you have lingered around my cabin door;
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      There’s a pale weeping man who toils his life away,
      With a worn heart whose better days are o’er:
      Though his voice would be merry, ’tis sighing all the day,
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      Tis the song, the sigh of the weary,
      Hard Times, hard times, come again no more
      Many days you have lingered around my cabin door;
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      Tis a sigh that is wafted across the troubled wave,
      Tis a wail that is heard upon the shore
      Tis a dirge that is murmured around the lowly grave
      Oh hard times come again no more.

      My sister Anne died from burns before I was born. She was 4 years of age. My mother was pregnant with my brother, Aidan at the time; a very traumatic time for mother AND child. This was 1947. I was born in 1950. My family consisted of 6 girls and five boys. My mother died in 1971 from cancer of the spine, aged 56 and my father died in 1975, from Congestive heart-failure, aged 65. My brother Patrick was the victim of a hit & run, in 1981, causing massive head injuries, resulting in his committal to a psychiatric hospital for the rest of his life. There was no long-stay unit anywhere for brain damaged patients. My brother Aidan and I visited him in the hospital nightly for 25 years. My sister Theresa was found dead in 2005 from an asthmatic attack, in England. Patrick died in 2006 from the effects of MRSA infection. Maria died in 2007 from cancer of the lungs and Aidan died in 2008 from suicide. He couldn’t fill the emotional gap left after Patrick’s death. I on the other hand started drinking heavy and the result was Diabetes and Diabetic neuropathy in both feet. My best friend, Joe, died in 2009 from a heart attack. My sister-in-law died in 2011 from a brain tumor. My sister Clare died in 2013 from breast cancer, aged 60. My niece, Annette, died in 2016 from breast cancer, aged 32 and my sister Phyllis died of cancer 10 pm 27/8/2017.

      She was aged 64 and died of cancer of the liver, which was very painful. She put off going into the hospice for the fear of knowing there was no coming out once she went in. But it was a mistake, for she suffered not having 24/7 care. She was miserable and finally decided to go to the hospice. There she received the best of care 24/7 and was pain-free.

      I believe that the morphine pump should be in the control of the patient.
      I picture the scenario where I call my friends to the hospice for my “going away party”. I would take care of any legal business and say my goodbyes at the end of the night. Then I would set the pump to “kick-in” about 30 minutes later, having taken my sleeping tablets. I would like to think someone would bring me some cocaine, so I could go out on a “high”!

      We MUST rid ourselves of our SLAUGHTERHOUSE THEOLOGY, which teaches pain is redemptive — it’s not!
      We ALL have our “sell by date”! And our departure from this life should be a “good” experience! I would love to be as “high as a kite” in my last hour of life!

      This is the women who brought in “pain-free” death:

      Cicely Mary Strode Saunders, medical director St Christopher’s Hospice 1967-85 (b Barnet, Hertfordshire, 22 June 1918; q St Thomas’ Hospital, London, 1957; OM, DBE, FRCP), died 14 July 2005.

      Cicely Saunders founded the first modern hospice and, more than anybody else, was responsible for establishing the discipline and the culture of palliative care. She introduced effective pain management and insisted that dying people needed dignity, compassion, and respect, as well as rigorous scientific methodology in the testing of treatments. She abolished the prevailing ethic that patients should be cured, that those who could not be cured were a sign of failure, and that it was acceptable and even desirable to lie to them about their prognosis.

      She put paid to the notion that dying people should wait until their painkillers had worn off before they received another dose, and scotched the notion that the risk of opiate addiction was an issue in their pain management.
      Saunders introduced the idea of “total pain,” which included the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions of distress. She regarded each person, whether patient or staff, as an individual to the end.
      A good listener, she paid systematic attention to patient narratives. She did away with “visiting hours,” which had been an excuse for having non-visiting hours. One St Christopher’s patient, transferred from another hospital, said,

      “They used to see how long I could go without an injection. I used to be pouring with sweat because of the pain. I couldn’t speak to anyone and I was having crying fits. I think I’ve only cried once since I’ve been here . . . The biggest difference is feeling so calm. I don’t get worked up or upset.”

      I now believe we should give people the choice of palliative care or assisted suicide.

      I fought my birth religion, which my parents tried to brainwash me with; as they had been by their parents! I refused to participate in the Roman Mass for my mother, who I loved dearly. I sat down with my father who thought I was some kind of heretic and told him:

      “Dad, this side of eternity you will not understand what I am doing! But there are two things I want you to know!
      “You are my father and I love you”!

      I told him that I was NOT rejecting him, but the delusions of religions and priestcraft!

      It’s time we rid ourselves of our “DINOSAUR” religions and prepare for our journey to the stars and other planets.


      Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
      and remember what peace there may be in silence.
      As far as possible without surrender
      be on good terms with all persons.
      Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
      and listen to others,
      even the dull and the ignorant;
      they too have their story.
      Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
      they are vexations to the spirit.
      If you compare yourself with others,
      you may become vain and bitter;
      for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
      Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
      Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
      it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
      Exercise caution in your business affairs;
      for the world is full of trickery.
      But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
      many persons strive for high ideals;
      and everywhere life is full of heroism.
      Be yourself.
      Especially, do not feign affection.
      Neither be cynical about love;
      for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
      it is as perennial as the grass.
      Take kindly the counsel of the years,
      gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
      Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
      But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
      Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
      Beyond a wholesome discipline,
      be gentle with yourself.
      You are a child of the universe,
      no less than the trees and the stars;
      you have a right to be here.
      And whether or not it is clear to you,
      no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
      Therefore be at peace with God,
      whatever you conceive Him to be,
      and whatever your labors and aspirations,
      in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
      With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
      it is still a beautiful world.
      Be cheerful.
      Strive to be happy.

      Max Ehrmann,
      Copyright 1952.


    2. “The issue of apostasy is very controversial for every religion and when it comes to Islam, the problem of leaving the faith gets almost the all shades of drama.”

      NO IT’S NOT!

      It’s very controversial in ISLAM, because there is a DEATH SENTENCE attached to apostasy!

      What Does Islam Teach About…


      Does Islam allow freedom of religion or does it threaten the death penalty for apostasy?

      Those who turn their back on Islam are to be executed. This is confirmed by the words and deeds of Muhammad. The only freedom of belief in Islam is the freedom to become Muslim.


      Quran (4:89) – “They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.” Verse 4:65 says that those who have faith are in “full submission” to Muhammad’s teachings. This verse explains what should happen to Muslims who do not “have faith” and (along with verses 90-91) do not agree to banishment and subjugation. (See the “Why They are Wrong” section of this response to apologists for a deeper analysis).

      Quran (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”

      Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith that establish the death sentence for apostates are Quran verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, 9:66.

      Hadith and Sira
      The most reliable Hadith collection contain numerous accounts of Muhammad and his companions putting people to death for leaving Islam. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran: “Those who obey the Messenger obey Allah.”

      Sahih Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ”

      Sahih Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

      Sahih Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

      Sahih Bukhari (89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

      Sahih Bukhari (84:58) – “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers'”

      Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'” This verse from the Hadith is worse than it appears because it isn’t speaking solely of apostates, but those who say they believe but don’t put their religion into practice.

      Sahih Bukhari (11:626) – “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.’ The Prophet added, ‘Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses’.”

      Abu Dawud (4346) – “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?” Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe, who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” – upon finding out that grammatical changes could be made. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

      al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) – “The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head.”

      Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).

      Islamic Law:

      There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.

      Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]’…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”

      The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”

      The OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration is transparent in its rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10:

      “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam: “[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”

      From Andrew Bostom’s CAIR’s Silence on Pastor’s Apostasy Death Sentence is Deafening
      In 2012, the website, Islam QA, offered a studied defense of killing apostates and “enemies of Islam” which was captured by Jihad Watch: Apostates from Islam and Those Who Wage War Verbally on Islam Must be Put to Death.

      While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over their religious beliefs then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many serious internal wars.

      Immediately after Muhammad’s death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places recalled as “Garden of Death” and “Gulley of Blood” during the first caliph Abu Bakr’s aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Quran by heart.

      As Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet “struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.” Thus did Abu Bakr promise to “burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive” any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)

      Ali, the fourth “Rightly Guided Caliph” was Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was quickly beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari v.17 p.191).

      In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.

      A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their religion – and theirs alone – endorses killing someone over a mere change in opinion (as critic Geert Wilders puts it, “Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out is no longer a religion”). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.

      Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error.” They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, “Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?” What they don’t mention is that Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly orders Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).

      These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could those closest to him have felt that there should be “no compulsion in religion” if they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam?

      Muhammad referred to the Companions as the ‘best generation of Muslims’ (Sahih Bukhari 6429), yet they wound up in battles against one another over disagreements of faith and charges of apostasy.

      The “Religion of Peace” expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn’t “embrace” Islam. Once spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness – such as raising their children in another faith – was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.

      One of the world’s most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had “gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today”. (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading, torture, burning and murder of millions but, rather, trying to rationalize it).

      And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of its most draconian rules, the world’s most popular Muslim apologist recently affirmed that the death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel called Peace TV).

      In 2018, a prominent Saudi scholar with 110k Twitter followers and a commitment to clearing up “misconceptions” about Islam confirmed that those who leave the faith are to be tried and killed by ‘Muslim rulers’: “This is the LAW in Islam and if you don’t like it, tough bananas! We don’t like your laws either!”

      In 2016, the Islamic State beheaded a 14-year-old boy in front of his parents for missing prayers. This was consistent with Muhammad’s order to burn those who would not pray (along with their houses), which he issued near the end of his life. When this happened, there was barely a peep of protest from the Muslim world.

      At the end of the day, even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates from Islam isn’t a part of the “true” religion never appear all that bothered when it does happen – much less champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries; in fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.



    This must be the most bizarre title you have ever seen.

    To the Arabs & Muslims, this is tantamount to BLASPHEMY!

    But is it?

    Has humanity been deceived for the last 700 years into accepting Arab & Muslim propaganda regarding Palestine as FACT?

    Let us explore this issue based entirely upon Muhammad’s Quran and no other.

    Anyone who has read the Quran let alone studied it would know the following:

    1. The chapters of the Quran are not written in the order of their alleged revelations to Muhammad. For example, the first verse of the Quran is actually in Sura 96 and not one or two!

    Sura Al Alaq 96:1

    “Proclaim! (or Read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher Who created…”

    2. The verses and story lines are boringly repetitive.

    3. The names of the Hebrew Biblical characters appear all of a sudden, without any indication as to which country they lived, in which era and in what context.

    4. Without references to the Hebrew Bible, no reader of the otherwise incoherent Quran could possibly know the full story of any and ALL of the Hebrew Biblical characters mentioned therein.

    Moreover, their stories in the Quran are based upon Rabbinic & Apocryphal traditions and not upon their originals in the Torah.

    5. The Quran as a whole has no beginning, no middle and no ending, totally unlike the Hebrew Bible.
    6. The stories in the chapters of the Quran, jump from one Hebrew Biblical character in one verse, to a completely different and unrelated character in a completely different era in the next verse, without rhyme, reason or logic.

    7. To compile the story of what we are about to reveal to you, we have had to ferret out all the relevant verses, scattered over many chapters of the Quran, and put them in a coherent order as faithful to the original story in the Hebrew Bible as possible.

    8. And that is why over the last 1400 years, no follower of Muhammad who has not read the Hebrew Bible, could possibly understand, let alone know, the whole story in a consistent manner.

    Before revealing the Quran’s Zionism, it is very important of course, to explain what Zionism means and is NOT according to Arab and Muslim distorted propaganda, but to facts.

    Believers and Unbelieving Kuffar, please be aware, that the immense majority of the followers of Muhammad, recognize the words Zionist and Zionism, but have absolutely no understanding of either the meaning or the concept of these words.

    In Hebrew, Zion is pronounced Tsion, a term that most often designates the Land of Israel and its capital, Jerusalem. The word is found in texts dating back almost three millennia.

    Originally, it was the name of a Canaanite fortress on top of Mount Tsion, which is near Jerusalem, which was captured by King David.

    David made it a royal residence to start with, and his son Solomon, built the first Temple on top of it. Henceforth, the whole hill was named Tsion. Thereafter, the name of the hill and the city of Jerusalem became synonymous.

    In many Hebrew Biblical verses, the Israelites were called the people, sons or daughters of Zion.

    The word Zionism is derived from, & associated with, the word Tsion or Zion.

    Zionism is actually the national revival movement for the return of the Jewish Diaspora to their homeland of Judea & Samaria, and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, the Promised Land, their birth place.

    Zionism was self-consciously the Jewish analogue of European national liberation movements of the nineteenth century. In the modern world it manifests itself as support for the principle and absolute right of the Jews to live securely in their own homeland Israel as they did over a millennia in ancient times as well as on and off over the centuries ever since.

    I shall begin with the most important example of Zionism in the Quran, which is the Quran’s version of the Exodus story starting with Allah’s instruction to Moses and Aaron to go to Pharaoh asking him to release the tribes of Israel from bondage.

    I shall recite only the relevant verses from the chapters in such a way as to make the storyline similar in manner to its original in the Torah. I shall jump over verses that are either repetitive or not relevant to the flow of the story.

    Please pay particular attention as to how – without our collation in a coherent sequence – the relevant verses of the Quran actually jump from one chapter to a completely different one, since they are scattered all over the chapters of the Quran and hence, by themselves do not make a coherent tale.

    Those who want the complete verses can read them in the Quran as I shall be giving you chapter & verse where to find them.

    Sura Ta Ha 20: 47

    “So go ye both to him (Pharaoh) and say `Verily we are apostles sent by thy Lord: send forth therefore the Children of Israel with us and afflict them not: with a Sign indeed have we come from thy Lord! And peace to all who follow guidance!

    Sura Al Aaraf 7: 104

    “Moses said: “O Pharaoh! I am an apostle from the Lord of the worlds.

    Sura Al Aaraf 7:130

    “We punished the people of Pharaoh with years (of drought) and shortness of crops; that they might receive admonition.
    132 They said (to Moses): “whatever be the signs thou bringest to work there with the sorcery on us, we shall never believe in thee.”

    133 So We sent (plagues) on them, Wholesale Death, Locusts, Lice, Frogs and Blood: signs openly Self-explained; but they were steeped in arrogance a people given to sin.

    134 Every time the penalty fell on them they said: “O Moses! On
    our behalf, call on thy Lord in virtue of his promise to thee: if thou wilt remove the penalty from us, we shall truly believe in thee and we shall send away the Children of Israel with thee.

    135 But every time We removed the penalty from them, according to a fixed term which they had to fulfill, Behold! they broke their word!

    136 So We exacted retribution from them: We drowned them in the sea because they rejected Our signs and failed to take warning from them.

    *** Anyone who has read the Hebrew Biblical original, would know, that what was allegedly revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, is completely different both in sequence and context ***

    Sura Ta Ha 20: 77

    “We sent an inspiration to Moses: “Travel by night with my servants ( the Israelites) and strike a dry path for them through the (Red) sea without fear of being overtaken (by Pharaoh) and without (any other) fear.”

    78 Then Pharaoh pursued them with his forces but the waters completely overwhelmed them and covered them up.

    79 Pharaoh led his people astray instead of leading them aright.

    Sura Al Aaraf 7:138

    “We took the Children of Israel (with safety) across the sea…

    *** To recap the story thus far: By Allah’s instructions, Moses & Aaron requested the release of the Israelite Tribes from bondage. Pharaoh refused. Allah punished him with a plague. Pharaoh recanted & asked forgiveness BUT when the plague was lifted he again disobeyed Allah. This continued until TEN plagues were visited upon Pharaoh and Egypt.

    Finally Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to leave, but he regretted his decision and pursued them into the Red Sea where Pharaoh & his troops were drowned by Allah thus saving Moses & the Israelites.

    So far, the storyline of the EXODUS, as we have rearranged it from the different chapters of the Quran, is relatively faithful to that of the Torah


    Sura Ta Ha 20:80 :

    “O ye Children of Israel! We delivered you from your enemy and We made a Covenant with you on the side of Mount (Sinai) and We sent down to you Manna and quails:

    Sura Al Israa 17: 2:

    “We gave Moses the Book (Torah) and made it a Guide to the Children of Israel (commanding): “Take not other than Me as Disposer of (your) affairs.”

    Sura Al Aaraf 7: 137:

    “And We made a people (Israelites) considered weak (and of no account) inheritors of lands in both east and west lands, where on We sent down our blessings. The fair promise of the Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy and We leveled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride).

    ***” inheritors of lands in both east and west lands” is actually the Promised Land of the Israelites on BOTH sides of the Jordan River***

    Sura Al Israa 17: 104

    “And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

    *** Allah, in very clear Arabic, asserts that he fulfilled his promise to reward the People of Israel with the Promised Land, the same land that the later conquering hordes of Muslim Arabs claim as exclusively theirs CONTRARY to their own Quran ***
    Sura Al Maida 5: 12

    “Allah did aforetime take a Covenant from the Children of Israel, and We appointed twelve captains among them and Allah said: “I am with you: if ye establish regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in My apostles, honor and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I shall wipe out from you your evils and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you after this resists faith he hath truly wandered from the path of rectitude.”

    *** Once again, does the Quran assert the close relationship between Allah, the People of Israel and his promise for the Land ***

    Sura Yunus 10: 93

    “We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place (the Promised Land) and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them on the Day of Judgment.

    94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book (Torah) from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.

    *** Allah is clearly instructing the followers of Muhammad that if they were in doubt about the veracity of what Muhammad was revealing to them, and then they should ask the Jews who read the Torah that Allah revealed to Moses.

    This SINGULAR verse, DESTROYS and NEGATES all the LIES and DECEPTIONS by the LATER followers of Muhammad regarding the authenticity and DIVINE origin of the Torah since had it been ALTERED or tampered with by the Jews, Allah would NOT have used it as a WITNESS to the veracity of the Quran***

    Sura Al Baqara 2: 40

    “O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you and fulfill your covenant with Me as I fulfill My covenant with you and fear none but Me”

    Al Baqara 2: 47

    “O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon You and that 50 And remember, We divided the (Red) sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh’s people within your very sight.

    51 And remember, We appointed forty nights for Moses and in his absence you took the calf (for worship) and ye did grievous wrong.

    52 Even then, We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful”

    *** Without a shadow of a doubt, the Quran in clear Arabic asserts that it was Allah who CHOSE the Israelites above all other nations and made a mutual covenant with them.

    Furthermore, verse 2:52 is remarkable in its assertion that Allah also FORGAVE their transgression.

    This verse in particular, ABROGATES, Overturns and overrides the LIES and PERVERSIONS by the followers of Muhammad, that tell Arabic IGNORAMOUS peoples that Allah had NOT forgiven the sin of the People of Israel ***

    Sura Al Baqara 2: 122

    “O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favor which I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you above the whole world!

    *** Once more in this verse does Allah assert that the Israelites are his CHOSEN PEOPLE***

    Sura Al Sajda 32: 23

    We did indeed aforetime give the Book (Torah) to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel”

    *** Allah is telling the followers of Muhammad that he gave the Torah ONLY to the People of Israel as a guide ***

    Sura Al Mu’min 40: 53

    “We did a foretime give Moses the (Book of) Guidance and We gave the Book (Torah) in inheritance to the Children of Israel”

    *** “We gave the Book (Torah) in inheritance to the Children of Israel” means to them and their generations AFTER them ***

    Sura Al Dukhan 44: 30

    “We did deliver a foretime the Children of Israel from humiliating Punishment

    31 Inflicted by Pharaoh for he was arrogant (even) among inordinate transgressors.

    32 And We chose them aforetime above all the nations knowingly

    Sura Al Jathiyah 45: 16

    “We did a foretime grant to the Children of Israel the Book (Torah), the Power of Command and Prophethood; We gave them for Sustenance things good and pure; and We favored them above all the nations”

    ***Believers and Unbelievers, please be aware, that the Quran, in verse after verse, repeatedly and unambiguously asserts, that it was Allah and ONLY Allah who did the Choosing, contrary to the Hatemongering declarations by Muslims, that it is the RACIST and ARROGANT Israelites and Jews who declare themselves the Chosen People***

    Sura Al Ahqaf 46: 12

    “And before this was the Book (Torah) of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book (Quran) confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.

    Sura Al sajda 32: 23

    “We did indeed aforetime give the Book (Torah) to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.

    Sura Al Maida 5:44

    “It was We who revealed the law (Torah to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s will by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book (Torah) and they were witnesses thereto:
    Sura Al Saffat 37: 114

    “Again! We bestowed Our favor on Moses and Aaron.

    115 And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;

    116 And We helped them so they overcame (their troubles);

    117 And We gave them the Book (Torah) which helps to make things clear;

    118 And We guided them to the Straight Way.

    119 And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:

    120 “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!”

    *** It should be pointed out that not once in these very important verses did Allah instruct the Children of Israel to pass on his Book (the Torah) to any other human group CONTRATY to the Malicious accusations that the Israelites hid the Torah from other peoples***

    And last but not least ‘ icing on the cake’ verse:

    Sura Al Maida 5: 21

    “O my people! enter the holy land (al Arth al Muqaddassah) which Allah hath assigned unto you and turn not back ignominiously for then will ye be overthrown to your own ruin.”

    Based upon all what we have revealed, how can any sane person accept the wild and unsubstantiated claims, that the loose leaf and arbitrary collection of the Quran is CORRECT, whereas the older Hebrew Book, the Torah, whose pages, chapters and verses are in correct order and upon which the Quran’s foundations are rooted, is not?

    It is obvious that Muhammad did not realize that his loose-leaf notes had fully captured and preserved – though somewhat scrambled up from the more ancient accounts – actually verified with detailed accounts, that the Israelites and the Jews had lived many centuries before him, settled and made their homeland as a nation in the very state of modern Israel & territories that have since been restored. These are the very lands that his followers absurdly deny had ever previously belonged to anyone else but themselves?

    In conclusion, based upon all the above, it is crystal clear, that contrary to the untested beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world today, their Quran in fact, fully supports and verifies the claims of the Jews for the Land of Israel as their ancient and rightful home and nation.

    JUDAISM – CHRISTENDOM – ISLAM are the 3 Abrahamic Cults of Death, which have drenched the earth with the blood of their victims



    “What if I told you there was a ‘prophet’ out there that is so WHITE, he makes Anderson Cooper look like Mike Tyson? He’s so WHITE, he makes a bowl of vanilla ice cream yell, ‘Get him out of here, he’s blinding me!’ He’s so WHITE, his 9-year-old child bride, Aisha, didn’t need a night light.”

    “Many people who don’t read the Muslim sources assume that Muhammad was dark-skinned, but Arabs are classified as Caucasians and they can exhibit a variety of shades and tones”.

    If we were to look for Muhammad in the midst of his fellow Arabs, al-Bukhari writes in his Hadith:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said, “Who amongst you is Muhammad?” At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his Companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, “This WHITE man reclining on his arm.”

    SAHIH MUSLIM 6081:

    It was narrated that Abu Juhaifah said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah with a WHITE complexion and some white hairs.”

    SAHIH MUSLIM (6071):

    It was narrated from Al-Jurairi from Abu At-Tufail: “I said to him: ‘Did you see the Messenger of Allah?’ He said: ‘Yes, he was WHITE with an elegant face.”

    Muslims sources go out of their way to point out the “WHITENESS of his [Muhammad] shins,” the “WHITENESS of the thigh,” the “WHITENESS of his leg” the “WHITENESS of his stomach,” the “WHITENESS of his forearms,” the “WHITENESS of his armpits” and the “WHITENESS of his cheeks.”

    To celebrate the history of Africa and especially black history, let’s commit to memory the names of Muhammad’s slaves.
    These are the names of Muhammad’s male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, ‘Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad’am, Karkara, Abu Rafi’, Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu ‘Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and Mahran.
    The female slaves are Salma Um Rafi’, Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa’d, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves.
    Source – Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in “Zad al-Ma’ad” (Part I, p. 160) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: “Zad al-Ma’ad” (his book) (Volume One, p. 116)

    “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.”
    Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21

    “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.”
    Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11

    Muslim Arab and Persian literature depicts Blacks as “stupid, untruthful, vicious, sexually unbridled, ugly and distorted, excessively merry, and easily affected by music and drink.”

    Nasir al-Din Tusi, a famous Muslim scholar said of Blacks:

    “The APE is more capable of being trained than the NEGRO.”

    Ibn Khaldun, an early Muslim thinker, writes that Blacks are
    “the only humans who are closer to DUMB ANIMALS than to rational beings.”

    IBN SINA, AVICENNA 980–1037
    Muslim Arab’s most famous and influential philosopher/scientist in Islam, described BLACKS as:
    “All African women are prostitutes, and the whole race of African men, are abed (slave) stock.” He equated black people with “RATS plaguing the earth.”


    Ibn Khaldum, an Arab historian stated that:
    “Blacks are characterized by levity and excitability and great emotionalism,”
    “they are everywhere described as STUPID.”
    al-Dimashqi, an Arab pseudo scientist, wrote:
    “the Equator is inhabited by communities of BLACKS who may be numbered among the SAVAGE BEASTS. Their complexion and hair are burnt and they are PHYSICALLY & MORALLY ABNORMAL. Their brains almost boil from the sun’s heat…..”

    Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani painted this no less horrid picture of black people:
    “…..the zanj (the blacks) are overdone until they are burnt, so that the child comes out between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, DEFICIENT MINDS AND DEPRAVED PASSIONS…..”

    The Arabs were the first to enslave Africans, starting from 650 CE. Ten times more millions of African slaves were involved in the Islamic experience than in the Trans-Atlantic slavery of Africans by the West. Between 650 CE and 1905 CE, over twenty million African slaves had been delivered through the Tans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world and a hundred million through the East African route. Dr. John Alembellah Azumah in his book, The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, ‘estimates that over 80 million more died en-route Trans-Sahara’ and trice as many through the Eastern route.

    A text from Dr. Azumah’s book provides this quote from a Zanzibar observer, about the travails of African slaves, en-route to slave markets, around the Arabic world.

    “As they filed past, we noticed many chained together by the neck… The women, who were as numerous as the men, carried babies on their backs in addition to a tusk of ivory or other burden on their heads… It is difficult to adequately describe the filthy state of their bodies; in many instances not only scarred by [the whip], but feet and shoulders were a mass of open sores… half-starved ill-treated creatures who, weary and friendless, must have longed for death.”

    A Muslim herdsman, in Dr. Azumah’s book described the fate of those who became too ill or too weak to continue the journey as follows:

    “We speared them at once! For, if we did not, others would pretend they are ill in order to avoid carrying their loads. No! We never leave them alive on the road; they all know this custom.” When asked who carries the ivory when a mother gets too tired to carry both her baby and the ivory, the herdsman replied, “She does! We cannot leave valuable ivory on the road. We spear the child and make her burden lighter.”

    Arab enslavement of Black Africans continues to this day in the Muslim world, particularly in the Sudan, Niger, and Mauritania. Arabs act as if Islamic slavery is a favour done to the millions of unfortunate African men, women and children, still being enslaved now by them and those forcibly uprooted from their native lands earlier on, and condemned to lives of sexual and mental abuse and servitude, deep in the Islamic world.

    Arabs do not consider Black Muslims authentic or of consequence. At best, they concede to Blacks, the role of ordained slaves or SENSELESS ANIMALS, to be used as BEASTS OF BURDEN by the “superior Arab race.” The rule applies to all Blacks, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, and whether of Nigerian (Hausa/Fulani or Yoruba extractions), or Tanzanians, Ugandans, Malians, or African-Americans. A traveller in Sudan observed in 1930 that:
    “In the eyes of the Arab rulers of Sudan, the BLACK SLAVES were simply ANIMALS given by Allah to make life of Arabs comfortable.”



    The Bible already expresses ambivalence about Hebrew slavery, the rabbis expand upon it and Maimonides takes the next step, applying the negative evaluation of slavery even to non-Israelites.

    Centrality of the Exodus Narrative Does not Erase Slavery from the Bible
    God forges his covenant by a self-identification:
    אָנֹכִי יְ-הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים. I am YHWH your God who took you out the land of Egypt (Exodus 20:2; Deut.5:6).

    The essence of Passover and/or the Matzot festival, which launches the annual cycle of pilgrimages, also commemorates the exodus, anchoring the relationship between God and Israel as Liberator and slave. We still celebrate this (combined) holiday of Passover and Matzot as “the time of our freedom[1] (זמן חרותינו).

    Yet, what disturbingly hovers over this core liberating experience is the very real phenomenon of ongoing actual slavery, recognized by the Hebrew Bible as a legitimate institution.[2] The very Decalogue, introduced by God as a supreme liberator, the one who took you out of the land of Egypt, tacitly endorses slavery as a sanctioned component of continuing Israelite life; slaves are offered relief from their indentured lives on the Sabbath only, lapsing back into their oppressed condition the other days of the week.
    Regulation of Hebrew Slavery: A Step Towards Abolition
    Although it sanctions the institution of slavery, biblical law begins the process toward abolition, a process still unresolved in various parts of the world, by regulating and restricting the absolute control a master could exercise over an Israelite slave. Though limited in scope, both the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21-23) and the Deuteronomic Collection (Deuteronomy 12-26) conceptually transform the Hebrew slave from pure chattel owned by the master, to some form of independent personhood bearing legal rights. This process culminates in Leviticus 25, which avoids the locution

    “Hebrew slave (עבד עברי)” altogether, preferring “your brother.” [3]

    Such laws as Exod. 21:26-27, mandating the release of a slave upon the infliction of physical injury by the master, are innovative for their time, and “without parallel in the Ancient Near East.”[4]

    Rabbinic Period: Making It Hard to Keep a Hebrew Slave
    In the first centuries of the Common Era, rabbinic jurisprudence, which often revised biblical law to accord with its own conceptions of law and morality, advanced the biblical rules governing the treatment of Hebrew slaves in further humane directions. The rabbis take this to such an extreme, that the Talmud states,

    “anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave acquires a master for himself” (b. Kiddushin 20a):

    כי טוב לו עמך – עמך במאכל ועמך במשתה, שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר, אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש, אתה ישן על גבי מוכים והוא ישן על גבי התבן, מכאן אמרו: כל הקונה עבד עברי, כקונה אדון לעצמו. “Because he is well with you” – he must be with [i.e., equal to] you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said: “Whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself.”[5]

    Nahmanides: Freeing Hebrew Slaves Is Being Like God
    Noting the close connection between the Covenant Collection and the Decalogue, Moses Nahmanides (1194-1270) draws a vital parallel between this “first legislation” (mishpat ha’rishon) and the first of the Ten Commandments (dibbur ha’rishon),
    מפני שיש בשילוח העבד בשנה השביעית זכר ליציאת מצרים הנזכר בדבור הראשון… [F]or the liberation of the slave in the seventh year is reminiscent of the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the first commandment… (Exodus 21:2)

    Israel’s consciousness of their own experience as a victim of oppression should compel them not to be victimizers, and this is enshrined in the biblical law of manumission after six years. By invoking the opening line of the Decalogue, Nahmanides creates a parallel between the Israelite owner freeing his slaves and God freeing the enslaved Israelites; thus by releasing the Hebrew slave, the Israelite owner follows in God’s ways (imitatio dei), as a liberator.


    Up until now, we have discussed only Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves were considered permanent acquisitions and never had to be freed. The stark contrast is seen best in the Holiness Collection, which, as stated above, denies that Hebrew can ever really be slaves:
    ויקרא כה:מב כִּֽי עֲבָדַ֣י הֵ֔ם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵ֥אתִי אֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם לֹ֥א יִמָּכְר֖וּ מִמְכֶּ֥רֶת עָֽבֶד: כה:מג לֹא תִרְדֶּ֥ה ב֖וֹ בְּפָ֑רֶךְ וְיָרֵ֖אתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶֽיךָ: כה:מד וְעַבְדְּךָ֥ וַאֲמָתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִהְיוּ לָ֑ךְ מֵאֵ֣ת הַגּוֹיִ֗ם אֲשֶׁר֙ סְבִיבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם מֵהֶ֥ם תִּקְנ֖וּ עֶ֥בֶד וְאָמָֽה: כה:מה וְ֠גַם מִבְּנֵ֨י הַתּוֹשָׁבִ֜ים הַגָּרִ֤ים עִמָּכֶם֙ מֵהֶ֣ם תִּקְנ֔וּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִמָּכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹלִ֖ידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶ֑ם וְהָי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה: כה:מו וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֜ם לִבְנֵיכֶ֤ם אַחֲרֵיכֶם֙ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אֲחֻזָּ֔ה לְעֹלָ֖ם בָּהֶ֣ם תַּעֲבֹ֑דוּ וּבְאַ֨חֵיכֶ֤ם בְּנֵֽי־ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אִ֣ישׁ בְּאָחִ֔יו לֹא תִרְדֶּ֥ה ב֖וֹ בְּפָֽרֶךְ: ס Leviticus 25:42 For they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt; they may not give themselves over into servitude.—25:43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly; you shall fear your God. 25:44 Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.

    The rabbis make no attempt to soften this. In fact, at least some voices in rabbinic literature interpret v. 46 not as permission to keep slaves forever but as a commandment to do so (b. Berachot 47b).
    …אמר רב יהודה: כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה, שנאמר: לעלם בהם תעבדו! …Rav Yehudah said: “Whoever frees his slave has violated a positive commandment, as it says, “You shall work them forever.”
    Nevertheless, the rabbis did take some small steps, by codifying a prohibition to humiliate non-Israelite slaves (b. Niddah 47a),
    …אמר שמואל: לעולם בהם תעבודו – לעבודה נתתים ולא לבושה. …Samuel said: “‘You shall work them forever’ – I gave them to you for work, but not for humiliation.”



    “Those who are incapable of attaining to supreme religious values include the BLACK coloured people and those who resemble them in their climates. Their nature is like the MUTE ANIMALS. Their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey.”

    (Maimonides, Guide To The Perplexed, Translation from the Hebrew Version)


    Canaan is identified as a black man and blacks as in inferior people, only in the Gemara, which is to say the latter part of the Talmud, the Midrash and later writings of the rabbis. This invective, this racism, is not anywhere in the bible concerning the black race.

    The rabbinic account of the malediction against Ham stipulates that his son Canaan, and all Canaan’s offspring, are to fated to suffer perpetual slavery and black skin without the chance of their condition being ameliorated. It is this anti-Old Testament, Rabbinic gloss that influenced those fifteenth century Renaissance humanists who had crossed over into the forbidden territory of the Talmud, the Midrash and the Kabbalah as part of a supposedly enlightened act. It is an irony of history that as a result of this supposedly progressive development, the abominable view of blacks as a perpetual race of slaves became entrenched among the western liberal intelligentsia for at least the next three hundred years.

    Here is what Schorsch writes in his book, JEWS and BLACKS in the EARLY MODERN WORLD:

    “Few Jewish thinkers understood Ham’s curse to initiate his or her progeny’s blackness.”

    That is an out and out prevarication. The classic rabbinic texts hold that the punishment visited upon Ham was the transformation of his son Canaan, and all Canaan’s progeny, into BLACKS.

    Rabbi Hiyya said,

    “Ham and the dog copulated on the ark. Therefore Ham came forth dark skinned.”




    Midrasch Talpioth, p 225 -L



    (French Rabbi, Ray Touitou – sermon uploaded to You Tube on 20 November 2013)

    A constant feature of the New World Order is that human beings are animals and we are defined by our animal desires.

    There is a consistent denial of God, or that human beings have a connection to God through our souls. Why is this?

    Animals have no rights.

    “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish Religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe – whether we are orthodox, conservative, reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists – we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.”

    Herman Wouk

    “The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud…” – “Babylonian Talmud”, published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII

    The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as “Gentiles”, “Goyim”.

    Let’s see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve’s “Chosen People”:

    “The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.”- Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

    “The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew.”- Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

    “Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form.” – Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

    “A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.”- Coschen hamischpat 405

    “The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs.”- Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

    “Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.”- Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

    “If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog.”- Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

    “If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: “God will replace ‘your loss’, just as if one of his oxen or asses had died”.”- Jore dea 377, 1

    “Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals.”- Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

    “It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile.”- Sepher ikkarim III c 25



    The Mishneh Torah Law Code
    Moses Maimonides (1138-1205) is the first to take a big step towards a more humane treatment of gentile slaves. In the final section of his Laws of Slavery, Maimonides, expresses moral discomfort with the idea, endorsed by the Torah, that an Israelite master is to work his non-Israelite slaves with harsh labor (pharekh),[6] which he defines as (Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Slaves” 1:6):

    No defined limit is set for the work.
    Useless work.[7]
    In both cases, the slave is not allowed a semblance of accomplishment that could salvage some sense of self-worth or empowerment as a human being.[8] In effect, the master replaces God as the supreme object of the slave’s obedience and dependence. Thus, this may account for why the classical rabbis considered keeping a slave past the obligatory sabbatical limit tantamount to idolatry.[9]
    Focusing on the imposition of pharekh labor, Maimonides writes, (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Slaves 9:8):
    Best to be compassionate and not overburden slaves. מֻתָּר לַעֲבֹד בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי בְּפָרֶךְ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדִּין כָּךְ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת וְדַרְכֵי חָכְמָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם רַחְמָן וְרוֹדֵף צֶדֶק וְלֹא יַכְבִּיד עֻלּוֹ עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְלֹא יָצֵר לוֹ. It is permissible to have a Canaanite slave perform excruciating labor (pharekh). Although this is the law, the attribute of piety and the ways of wisdom is for a person to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to excessively burden his slaves, nor cause them distress.
    Feed slaves well. וְיַאֲכִילֵהוּ וְיַשְׁקֵהוּ מִכָּל מַאֲכָל וּמִכָּל מִשְׁתֶּה. חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין לָעֶבֶד מִכָּל תַּבְשִׁיל וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין. וּמַקְדִּימִין מְזוֹן הַבְּהֵמוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים לִסְעוּדַת עַצְמָן. He should feed them and give them drink from all his available food and drink. This was the practice of the ancient Sages who would give their slaves from every dish of which they themselves would partake. And they would provide food for their animals and slaves before partaking of their own meals.
    A master to his slave has the power of God. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קכג-ב) “כְעֵינֵי עֲבָדִים אֶל יַד אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם כְּעֵינֵי שִׁפְחָה אֶל יַד גְּבִרְתָּהּ [כֵּ֣ן עֵ֭ינֵינוּ אֶל־ה’ אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ עַד שֶׁיְּחָנֵּנוּ]”. And so, it is written Psalms 123:2: “As the eyes of slaves to their master’s hand, and like the eyes of a maid-servant to her mistress’ hand, [so are our eyes to the Lord our God awaiting his favor].”
    Do not verbally abuse a slave, but speak kindly. וְכֵן לֹא יְבַזֵּהוּ בַּיָּד וְלֹא בִּדְבָרִים. לְעַבְדוּת מְסָרָן הַכָּתוּב לֹא לְבוּשָׁה. וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה עָלָיו צְעָקָה וְכַעַס אֶלָּא יְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ בְּנַחַת וְיִשְׁמַע טַעֲנוֹתָיו. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ בְּדַרְכֵי אִיּוֹב הַטּוֹבִים שֶׁהִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בָּהֶן (איוב לא-יג) “אִם אֶמְאַס מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי בְּרִבָם עִמָּדִי” (איוב לא-טו) “הֲלֹא בַבֶּטֶן עשֵֹׁנִי עָשָׂהוּ וַיְכֻנֶנּוּ בָּרֶחֶם אֶחָד.” Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave verbally or physically, for the Torah only contemplated work for them not humiliation. Nor should one excessively scream at or exhibit anger with them. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their complaints. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised Job 31:13, 15: “Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarreled with me…. Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form us both in the womb?”
    The children of Abraham are kind and not cruel like idolaters. וְאֵין הָאַכְזָרִיּוּת וְהָעַזּוּת מְצוּיָה אֶלָּא בְּעַכּוּ”ם עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲבָל זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְהֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִשְׁפִּיעַ לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טוֹבַת הַתּוֹרָה וְצִוָּה אוֹתָם בְּ”חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים צַדִּיקִים” רַחְמָנִים הֵם עַל הַכּל. Cruelty and arrogance are common only among idolaters. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e. Israel on whom the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe “righteous statutes and judgments,” (Deuteronomy 4:8) are compassionate to all.
    God is merciful so we should be as well. וְכֵן בְּמִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶּׁצִּוָּנוּ לְהִדָּמוֹת בָּהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קמה-ט) “וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו . וְכָל הַמְרַחֵם מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג:יח) “וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ”: And similarly, with regard to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He commanded us to imitate, it is written Psalms 145:9: “His mercy is upon all of His works.” And whoever shows mercy to others will have mercy shown to him, as implied by Deuteronomy 13:18: “He will show you compassion, and in His compassion merciful increase you.”

    This codified recommendation represents the high water mark of Jewish law in expressing noble and equitable ideals. It also presents an exquisite weave of biblical texts, philosophy, theology, and law. This emerges most clearly if we follow the logic of four verses Maimonides cites and how he integrates them into a kind of philosophically theological mini-treatise that touches on the nature of man, his relationship with the divine, the nature of God, and imitatio dei.

    A Closer Look at the Verses
    Maimonides Quotes
    1. Kindness (Without) obligation; Psalms 123:2
    הִנֵּ֨ה כְעֵינֵ֢י עֲבָדִ֡ים אֶל יַ֤ד אֲֽדוֹנֵיהֶ֗ם כְּעֵינֵ֣י שִׁפְחָה֘ אֶל יַ֪ד גְּבִ֫רְתָּ֥הּ כֵּ֣ן עֵ֭ינֵינוּ אֶל יְ-הֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ עַ֗ד שֶׁיְּחָנֵּֽנוּ: As the eyes of slaves to their master’s hand, and like the eyes of a maid-servant to her mistress’ hand, so are our eyes to YHWH our God awaiting his favor.

    By ending with God’s “favor (ח-נ-נ),” which connotes kindness without obligation, we are reminded that the non-Jewish slave has no legal grounds for grievance against pharekh labor. Nevertheless, Maimonides uses this text to prioritize the slave’s needs—like quality food at proper meal times—over the master’s needs, a level of compassion that would surely undermine the utilitarian basis for slave ownership.
    2. All Are Formed in the Womb: Job 31:13, 15
    אִם־אֶמְאַ֗ס מִשְׁפַּ֣ט עַ֭בְדִּי וַאֲמָתִ֑י בְּ֝רִבָ֗ם עִמָּדִֽי… הֲֽלֹא־בַ֭בֶּטֶן עֹשֵׂ֣נִי עָשָׂ֑הוּ וַ֝יְכֻנֶ֗נּוּ בָּרֶ֥חֶם אֶחָֽד: Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarreled with me…. Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form us both in the womb?
    While the previous verse called for supererogatory conduct, this verse demands abiding by the legal duties (משפט) a master owes his slave because, as Job says, both he and the slaves share the same humanity; [10] all are formed in the womb, and every individual emerges from the same physiological processes.[11]

    3. A Legal Claim: Deuteronomy 4:8
    וּמִי֙ גּ֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ חֻקִּ֥ים וּמִשְׁפָּטִ֖ים צַדִּיקִ֑ם כְּכֹל֙ הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם: Or what great nation has laws and rules as perfect as all this Teaching that I set before you this day?
    Building off the reference to משפט in Job, here Maimonides raises the stakes for the normative value of his advised treatment of slaves by transforming it into a bedrock of the entire Jewish legal framework.

    4. Imitatio Dei : Psalms 145:9 and Deuteronomy 13:18
    טוֹב יְ-הֹוָ֥ה לַכֹּ֑ל וְ֝רַחֲמָ֗יו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָֽׂיו: YHWH is good to all, and His mercy is upon all His works.
    וְנָֽתַן לְךָ֤ רַחֲמִים֙ וְרִֽחַמְךָ֣ וְהִרְבֶּ֔ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ: And he will show you compassion, and in His compassion increase you as He promised your fathers on oath.
    The last verses cited concentrate on the trait of “mercy,” which Maimonides uses to underline the moral of gravity of the benevolent treatment of slaves, regardless of their origins, by raising it to the level of imitatio dei.
    In fact, Maimonides may be implying even more than this.

    All Humans Are Created Equal:
    Maimonides in Guide of the Perplexed
    Maimonides’ Guide offers a complementary explanation of what it means to be human that works in tandem with the legal case he builds about slavery in the Mishneh Torah. According to Maimonides any differences between individual members of a species are accidental, attributable only to the fickle nature of matter, or their physical constituents, since

    “[T]here in no way exists a relation of superiority and inferiority between individuals conforming to the course of nature except that which follows necessarily from the differences in the disposition of the various kinds of matter…” [12]

    For Maimonides, material success or physical prowess do not in any way indicate superiority over others since they are simply arbitrary consequences of the natural world that do not constitute an “increment in substance.”[13] He then cites, among other verses, the same verse he uses to end the halakha about non-Jewish slaves, Psalm. 145:9, to substantiate the principle of divine:

    “beneficence with regard to His creatures…in that He makes individuals of the same species equal at their creation.” [14]

    No verse better captures what is perceived as the modern liberal ideal of “all men are created equal” than Psalms 145:9 in Maimonides’ reading. It elevates the equalization of another human being to a metaphysical standard of imitatio dei, and one which emulates the specific divine trait that grounds all of human existence in the “mercy” that establishes a common human form and that is blind to contingent differences.
    Conclusion: Slavery Is Contra Deum
    Psalm. 145:9 then delivers the philosophical and theological coup de grace to slavery. If God’s “beneficence” is manifest in the equality inherent in human beings “at their creation,” then to exert mastery over another human being subverts God’s governance and constitutes an act contra deum rather than imitatio dei.
    Professor James A. Diamond is the Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Chair of Jewish Studies at the University of Waterloo and former director of the university’s Friedberg Genizah Project. He holds a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and Medieival Jewish Thought from the University of Toronto, and an LL.M. from New York University’s Law School.

    He is also a Herzl Institute/Templeton Foundation Fellow. His primary areas of study include biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, medieval Jewish thought and philosophy, Maimonides, and rabbinics. He is the author of Maimonides and the Hermeneutics of Concealment (SUNY, 2002) which was awarded the Canadian Jewish Book Award and Converts, Heretics and Lepers: Maimonides and the Outsider (University of Notre Dame, 2008) awarded Notable Selection-Jordan Schnitzer Book Award in the Category of Philosophy and Jewish Thought for best book in 4 years (2008) as well as the Canadian Jewish Book Award. His most recent book, Maimonides and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon (Cambridge, 2014), argues that Maimonides’ philosophy and jurisprudence has become an integral part of the Jewish canon alongside the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.

    [1] In Exodus, its perpetual memory is sustained by observing the pre-Deuteronomic Festival of the Unleavened Bread, “for on this very day I brought you out of the land of Egypt” (12:17). In Deuteronomy, this is conflated with the Passover festival, “so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live” (Deuteronomy. 16:3). For an excellent analysis of the Deuteronomic transformation of both biblical festivals into one see ch. 3 of Bernard Levinson’s Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997). See also Michael Satlow’s TABS essay, “Passover and the Festival of Matzot:
    Synthesizing Two Holidays.”

    [2] For another reflection on this problem, see Isaac Sassoon’s TABS essay, “Did Israel Celebrate Their Freedom While Owning Slaves?”

    [3] For more on the three sets of Hebrew slave laws the TABS essays by Marvin Sweeney, “The Bible’s Evolving Effort to Humanize Debt Slavery.” Zev Farber, “The Law of the Hebrew Slave: Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy,” and Aaron Koller, “The Law of the Hebrew Slave: Reading the Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy Law Collections as Complementary.”

    [4] See Reuven Yaron, “Biblical Law: Prolegomena,” in Jewish Law in Legal History, ed., Bernard Jackson (Leiden: Brill, 1990) p.36, and Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, (Augsburg Press, 1988) pp.162-163.

    [5] In her comprehensive survey of slavery in the rabbinic corpus, Catherine Heszer asserts the same distinction between rabbinic an Roman law as that made previously with respect to the distinct nature of biblical laws on slavery. Although rabbinic/biblical bears some analogy to Roman law in its recognition of a master’s right to punish a slave for misconduct, “unlike Roman Law, biblical and rabbinic law refrain from granting the master an unlimited power of life and death over his slave.” In Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) p. 211.

    [6] As is his systematic wont, Maimonides dedicates a section in his Code to the laws governing slaves but ends, as is also his custom in a number of other sections, with his own creative, rhetorical, non-halakhic sentiments which finally collapse the distinction between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.

    כל עבד עברי אסור לעבוד בו בפרך, ואיזו היא עבודת פרך זו עבודה שאין לה קצבה ועבודה שאינו צריך לה אלא תהיה מחשבתו להעבידו בלבד שלא יבטל

    [8] The horror of this kind of labor reappears in the twentieth century in the Nazi concentration camps captured with mind numbing force by Primo Levi: “In the early Lagers, which were almost coeval with H’s coming to power work was purely persecutory, practically useless for productive ends: to send the undernourished to dig up turf or cut stone served only a terroristic purpose…for Nazi rhetoric…”work ennobles” and therefore the ignoble adversaries of the regime are not worthy of working in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Their work must be afflictive; it must leave no room for professionalism, must be the work of beasts of burden- pull, push, carry weights, bend over the soil. This too is useless violence…” in The Drowned and the Saved (NY: Vintage Books, 1989), p.121.

    [9] See for example jKiddushin 1:2. To appreciate the theological offensiveness of slavery, it is instructive to note that the term “harsh labor (פרך;, pharekh),” which the Israelites are forbidden to subject their fellow Israelites to, is the same term used in the Torah regarding the Egyptians treatment of Israelites (Exodus. 1:13-14).

    [10] The moral gravity of Job’s sentiment carries through into the modern age and concludes Isaac Mendelsohn’s pioneering scholarly work on Slavery in the Ancient Near East (NY: Oxford University Press, 1949) who also recognizes the unique biblical progressiveness in restricting the right to enslave in perpetuity, “a step which no other religion had taken before.” His parting comment is “The first man in the Ancient Near East who raised his voice in a sweeping condemnation of slavery as a cruel and inhuman institution, irrespective of nationality and race, was the philosopher Job.” He then quotes Job31:15 as the expression of this moral condemnation of slavery. (p.123)

    [11] Maimonides’ choice of Job’s declaration of equal human rights is also determined by Job’s situation of a shared humanity in birth. Maimonides, again in the Guide, points to the very process of the formation of the embryo in the womb as emblematic of divine mercy, a characteristic human beings attribute to God based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. “[T]he production of the embryos of living beings, the bringing of various faculties to existence in them and in those who rear them after birth-faculties that preserve them from destruction and annihilation and protect them against harm and are useful to them in all the doings that are necessary to them” Guide, I:54, p.125.
    [12] III:12, p.447.
    [13] Ibid.
    [14] Ibid, p.448.


  5. I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get got an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following.
    unwell unquestionably come more formerly again since exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this increase.





    “I form the LIGHT, and create DARKNESS. I make PEACE, and create EVIL.
    I the LORD do all these things.” – Isaiah 45.7.

    All cultures have anthropomorphized their gods into humanoid (if sometimes grotesque) form. Were the Jews the exception? Hardly. We know precisely what the Hebrew god looked like. We are, after all, fashioned in his own likeness! “Yahweh”, in fact, is an abbreviation of the longer name, “Yahweh Sabaoth.” It means, “He who musters armies.” Thus Yahweh’s name identifies the god primarily as the military leader of the tribe. No wonder the God bequeathed to the world by the Jews turned out to be a monster.


    “The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.” – Exodus 15.3.

    “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
    Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

    Without a doubt, the human race has been bludgeoned with books about this one tome, the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible is full of violence and ugly stories, with a few “feel-good” platitudes and parables interspersed. It’s hardly worth reading. Other than a handful of spiritual gems that can be found in virtually any religion, the Jewish Bible is irrelevant. A person with an innate sense of right and wrong needs none of its teachings, sparse as they are. Reading the Jewish Bible, in fact, can make one highly depraved. Many a serial rapist and killer has also been a Jewish Bible fanatic. They have taken seriously the punishments exacted throughout the Old Testament, such as stoning for “adulterous” women, “the Lord” punishing “his chosen” by making them eat each other, etc., ad nauseam.

    In Numbers 31:14-18, Moses becomes enraged that his minions hadn’t finished off the people of Midian after the Hebrews had destroyed and pillaged the Midianites’ cities and enslaved the survivors. Moses immediately orders his thugs to kill all the male children and married women but to reserve the virgin girls for themselves – to rape, of course.

    Hardly something we should be teaching our children. The Jewish Bible is the ultimate controlling device.

    God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
    (Genesis 22.2)

    Boy terrified in ritual abuse in the mountains -Yahweh cult’s ‘Test of Fear’
    “God put Abraham to the test … Abraham built an altar … bound Isaac hand & foot … took the slaughtering knife to kill his son … But the angel of the Lord began calling … ‘Do not put out your hand against the boy …. for now I know that you fear the Lord …’ (Genesis 22.1,12)

    The story of Isaac is NOT a condemnation of child sacrifice. Isaac was spared not because human sacrifice was seen to be wrong but because Isaac was the “child of promise” and needed to survive. The yarn requires the normality of human sacrifice. Abraham was praised for his willingness to appease Yahweh by killing his own son. The sham murder of Isaac (the ‘Aquedah’) was the prototype for a ‘redemptive sacrificial death’ subsequently re-worked as the crucified Jesus.

    It should be noted that in the biblical text, Isaac (like Jesus) is repeatedly called “the only son” of Abraham (Genesis 22.2., 12., 16.) even though Abraham actually has another, older son, Ishmael.

    Moses orders Levite fanatics to murder 3000 golden-calf enthusiasts.
    (Exodus 32.27,29)


    “‘Today,’ Moses said, ‘you have consecrated yourself to Yahweh, at the cost of your sons and brothers. And so he bestows a blessing on you today.'”

    When the Lord says kill everyone He means EVERYONE!
    Saul loses out:
    “You didn’t kill enough,” says the Lord. “You can’t be king!”

    “And Saul defeated the Amalekites … and devoted to destruction all the people … But Saul spared Agag and … all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.
    And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” … Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully … And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
    – 1 Samuel 15

    The LORD delivers 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites for slaughter in Bezek. As part of the fun 71 kings have their thumbs and big toes cut off.
    (Judges 1.2,7)

    “And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand … Then Judah went up, and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek.”
    – Judges 1.2-4.

    Elisha orders the assassination of Jezebel.
    (2 Kings 9,5,37)

    Joshua Slaughters 31 kings
    (Joshua 12.1,24)

    Elijah Murders 450 Priests of Baal.
    (1 Kings 18.40)

    Samson Slays 1000 Philistines (with an ass’s jawbone! )
    (Judges 15.16)

    King Amaziah of Judah (c. 801–783 BC) throws 10,000 captive Edomites from the top of a rock.
    (2 Chronicles 25.12)

    Usurper Jehu tricks all the priests of Baal into temple slaughter.
    (2 Kings 10.19.30)

    “Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, slay them; let none come forth. And they smote them with the edge of the sword; and the guard and the captains cast them out, and went to the city of the house of Baal. And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them.”


    “And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing right in mine eyes, hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the 4th generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”

    In Joshua’s (supposed) wars of conquest, God gets right in there. He throws down ‘great stones from heaven’ (Joshua 10.11) and scores a better body-count than his Israelites with mere swords. When the Lord gets up a real head of steam the slaughter reaches a truly epic scale. For merely looking into his Ark, Yahweh wipes out fifty thousand and seventy unfortunate men of Bethshemesh (1 Samuel 6.19). When King David slips up and orders a national census, an enraged God zaps seventy thousand.

    Quite apart from the celestial superman’s own killing, he animates his favourites into wiping out whole cities and nations. Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah etc., etc., are ‘smote and consumed’ – men, women, young, old, ox, sheep and ass!

    ‘You shall annihilate them – Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites – as Yahweh your God commanded you.’

    – Deuteronomy 20.11,18.

    In the largest single god-inspired massacre in the Bible, one million (1,000,000) Ethiopians are slaughtered! (2 Chronicles 14).


    Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the JEWISH Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The JEWISH Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

    Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the JEWISH Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the JEWISH Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

    The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way”. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

    The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

    “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever”. (Exodus 21:2-6)

    Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

    The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment”. (Exodus 21:7-11)

    So these are the JEWISH Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

    What does the JEWISH Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

    “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property”. (Exodus 21:20-21)
    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ”. (Ephesians 6:5 )
    “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them”. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.
    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48)

    The Jewish Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre

    In contemporary times, slavery is almost universally reviled; while human trafficking and similar practices are still far too common, people generally no longer argue that human beings should be owned like property. However, through most of human history, well into the nineteenth century, slavery was (notwithstanding the opinions of the enslaved) broadly accepted as an economic and social necessity.

    Slavery was an important facet of life in biblical times. Both the Old and the New Testaments have instructions regarding slaves which contemporary Jews and Christians generally disregard, and which Christian apologists frequently attempt to play down or deny.
    Some fringe Christian Biblical literalists, notably those who believe in Dominionism, argue that biblical instructions regarding slavery and its institutions are still relevant.

    The Bible identifies different categories of slaves including female Hebrew slaves, male Hebrew slaves, non-Hebrew and hereditary slaves. These were subject to different regulations.

    Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11), but under some conditions.

    Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six year period to eliminate their debts, after this period they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master’s property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves. (Exodus 21:2-5). Evangelical Christians, especially those who subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, will commonly emphasize this debt bondage and try to minimise the other forms of race-based chattel slavery when attempting to excuse the Bible for endorsing slavery.

    Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children-men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property.(Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
    Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.
    So the Bible endorses various types of slavery, see below – though Biblical literalists only want to talk about one version and claim that it wasn’t really so bad.

    As previously stated the JEWISH Bible endorsed different types or grades of slavery.

    Female Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11)
    7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

    Exodus 21:2-6:
    2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

    It is interesting to note that if a slave wishes to remain with his wife and family he must submit to his master for life.

    On the other hand Hebrew slaves – and only those Hebrew slaves who entered slavery “voluntarily” – got some severance package as described in Deuteronomy 15:12-15:
    12If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. 13When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. 14You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

    If the Israelites wanted full slaves they were instructed in Leviticus 25:44-46:
    44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

    The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4:
    If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

    Beating slaves was perfectly allowable under the following rules:
    Exodus 21:20-21:
    20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

    Exodus 21:26-27:
    26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

    Hebrews were not allowed to abduct fellow Hebrews and sell them.
    Exodus 21:16: 16
    He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
    Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus 25 v 44 to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews. Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime.

    An escaped slave could not be handed over to his master, and would gain full citizenship among Israelites:

    Deuteronomy 23:15-16:
    15You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

    However, as BibleTrack complementaries put it regarding Deut 23:15

    “Most students of the Old Testament agree that this regulation concerns a slave who has escaped from his master in some foreign land and sought refuge in Israel. We do know that, in addition to slaves captured in battle, debt slavery and voluntary slavery existed in Israel and was protected by law, so it seems unlikely that this law applies to those two categories of slaves. We simply aren’t given any detail beyond these two verses.

    The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul, or whoever wrote the epistles, at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government. Or, more probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life as did practically everyone else at the time.

    Ephesians 6:5-8:
    5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

    Christian slaves were told to obey their masters “for the sake of the cause” and be especially obedient to Christian masters:

    1 Timothy 6:1-2:
    1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
    There are instructions for Christian slave owners to treat their slaves well.
    Ephesians 6:9:
    9And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
    Colossians 4:1
    1Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

    One passage often cited by apologists as supposed evidence for New Testament condemnation of slavery is 1 Timothy 1:10. However, as the King James version accurately translates, this condemnation is of “men stealers” (Greek: andrapodistais), i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people as slaves, not slave traders or slave holders in general. So Paul only singled out slave raiders to be considered “lawless and rebellious,” and to be categorized with murderers, homosexuals, liars and oath breakers.

    The rather bland admonishment to slave masters by Paul is more than balanced by the demands for absolute obedience made of slaves. It is also rather telling that the masters are likened to God and Jesus, while the masters are simply told that they have a higher lord. So much for Jesus as the embodiment of the underdog – Paul could have pointed to Jesus’ imprisonment and death as a cautionary tale to slave masters that even humble(d) characters can be important.

    Before the apologist plays the “but Jesus didn’t condone slavery”-card, following all these Pauline examples, try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).

    This is probably one of the clearest example of religious moral relativism.
    Most modern Christians prefer to avoid, or are unaware of, these sections of the JEWISH Bible. If forced to explain JEWISH Biblical justification for slavery, they may come up with something, but fortunately Christians as a group think it would be wrong to reintroduce slavery. Christian attempts to justify what is in the JEWISH Bible can lead to them sanctioning things that most moral humanists, and even most Christians, would say are wrong, as can be seen from the quote below.


    “They ‘shall be of the heathen’ is the key phrase here. God approved of slavery in this instance only because it was His hope that those who became slaves of the Israelites from foreign nations might “be saved.” Even though they would lose their earthly freedom, God hoped that they would gain eternal freedom by coming to know Him, which is far more important.”


    Argument 1: “Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th Century America and other Ancient Near East cultures.”

    Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

    Argument 2: “They could be let go after 6 years” or “It was a mechanism for protecting the those who could not pay their debts.” (A.k.a. “Debt bondage”)

    Only some Hebrew male slaves were to be freed in the 7th year (Exodus 21:2). Slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years (Exodus 21:7).

    Argument 3: The Bible restricted slave owners’ actions (Exodus 21:20).

    Exodus 21:20 does mandate punishment for a master who kills a slave with a rod, but the very next verse says “But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (NRSV). The NIV, by contrast, translates this verse as “if the slave recovers after a day or two”, which changes its meaning. Either way, the emphasis is that the slave is first and foremost property, and therefore the greatest loss is to the owner, whose slave was “as good as money”.

    Argument 4: “Slavery was allowed by God because of the time period, but was not the ideal will of God.”

    There are many ways a creative, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery “wind down”, should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7, Leviticus 25:44-46), by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch’s instructions, did not do so.
    Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would baulk at telling them to give up slaves.

    Argument 5: “The term ‘slave’ is a poor translation. It should be ‘servant’.”

    This may be plausible in some contexts, but not for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner’s children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery—permanent ownership of one human by another—as we know it today.

    Jesus’ parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said “servant” is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the “servant”, his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).

    It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these “servants” may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master “shall cut him asunder” in the words of the King James translation.


    Foreword — Daat Emet
    For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
    Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
    A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
    A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
    The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
    A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
    The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
    One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
    A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
    One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
    A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
    One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
    The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbour” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
    Gentiles are likened to animals.
    If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
    Their members are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
    Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
    R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article:
    “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article,
    “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:
    “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

    Was the great and revered rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) a racist?
    The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion refers to Moses Maimonides, a.k.a. Rambam, as “the symbol of the pure and orthodox faith.” His Guide of the Perplexed is considered the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy:
    1. “[T]he Negroes found in the remote South, and those who resemble them from among them that are with us in these climes. The status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes.”
    Several Jewish scholars have translated the “Guide,” interpreting the above passage as referring to Black Africans:
    1. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated and edited by Shlomo Pines; with an introductory essay by Leo Strauss (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapter 51, pp. 618-19. Moses Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed, trans. and ed. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963), 2:618-19. Other translations use the term “cushites” or “blacks” in place of “Negroes.” See M. Friedlander’s translation (1904; reprint, New York: Dover, 1956), 384.
    2. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed; an abridged edition with introduction and commentary by Julius Guttmann; translated from the Arabic; Dalalat al-ha’irin; English; selections by Chaim Rabin; new introduction by Daniel H. Frank (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1995), p. 185.
    3. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated from the original and annotated by M. Friedländer (New York: Hebrew Pub. Co., 1881), pp. 279-80. Here the word “Kushites” is used.
    One might also see Essays on Maimonides; An Octocentennial Volume, edited by Salo Wittmayer Baron (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941). Baron is quite explicit about the attitudes of Maimonides on slavery. On page 239, for instance, he writes, “For Maimuni [Maimonides] a slave is not fully human in matters of sex…”

    “If there was a legal case between a Jew and a Gentile (non-Jew), then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do not find it difficult, and don’t be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for ‘man’ [that is to say, the entire raison d’etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man —
    comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides’s Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book.”
    ‘The Jew alone regards his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a tribal Messiah.’
    Goldwin Smith, Professor of Modern History, Oxford University, in Nineteenth Century, October 1881


  7. I actually view any one of our friends turning into confused about LEAVING
    Now i’m confused as a result! Is it possible to have use refreshed using this step later in life?
    Exactly what do I truly for additional details on the device?


      All Religions are nothing but error, illusion and imposture.

      Know then, my Muslim friend, that all that is spread about and practiced in the world in the way of cults and adoration of gods is naught but error, abuse, and imposture. All laws and ordinances published in the name of and by authority of God, or gods, are really nothing but human inventions, like all those beautiful festivals at holidays and sacrifices and divine offices, and all the other superstitious practices of religion and devotion that are done in their honor. All these things, I say, are naught but human inventions which were invented by clever politicians and then cultivated and multiplied by seducers and imposters, blindly accepted by the ignorant, and finally maintained and authorized by the laws of princes and the great of the earth, who used these human inventions in order to more easily bridle the common run of men and to do with them what they willed.

      But in the end, these inventions are nothing but bridles for camels, for they only serve to bridle the spirit of the ignorant and the simple. The wise do not bridle themselves, and don’t allow themselves to be bridled, for in fact it is only the ignorant and the simple that accept this and allow themselves to be led. And what I am here saying in general on the vanity and falsity of religions I am not only saying about those pagan religions that you already look upon as false, but I am also saying it about your Islamic religion, because in fact it is no less vain, no less false than any other, and I can even say that, in a sense, it is perhaps even more vain and more false than any other, for there is perhaps no other as ridiculous or absurd in its principal points as this one, nor any that is so contrary to nature itself and reason.

      This is what I am telling you, my Muslim friend, so that you do not allow yourselves to be any longer deceived by the beautiful promises it makes to you of the so-called eternal rewards of a paradise that is only imaginary, and so that you put your spirit and heart at rest regarding all the vain fears it instils in you about the so-called eternal punishments of a hell that does not exist. For all that is told you of the beauty and magnificence of the one and the terror and frights of the other are nothing but fables: after death there is neither good nor evil to fear.

      Wisely profit then from your time by living well and by soberly, peacefully, and joyously enjoying life’s goods and the fruits of your labor, for this is your part and the best thing you can do. For death, in putting an end to life, also puts an end to all knowledge and all sentiments of good and evil.

      1. Muhammad said that yawning is from Satan.
      1. The Prophet said, “Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: ‘Ha’, Satan will laugh at him.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 509: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      2. Muhammad said that yawning is from Satan and that Allah likes sneezing and dislikes yawning.
      1. The Prophet said, “Allah likes sneezing and dislikes yawning, so if someone sneezes and then praises Allah, then it is obligatory on every Muslim who heard him, to say: May Allah be merciful to you (Yar-hamuka-l-lah). But as regards yawning, it is from Satan, so one must try one’s best to stop it, if one says ‘Ha’ when yawning, Satan will laugh at him.” Volume 8, Book 73, Number 242: Narrated Abu Huraira: See also Volume 8, Book 73, Number 245:, Narrated Abu Huraira:
      3. Muhammad said a good dream is from Allah and a bad dream is from Satan.
      1. The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is from Satan; so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek Refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 513: Narrated Abu Qatada:ï’
      2. I heard the Prophet saying, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So if anyone of you sees (in a dream) something he dislikes, when he gets up he should blow thrice (on his left side) and seek refuge with Allah from its evil for then it will not harm him.” Volume 7, Book 71, Number 643: Narrated Abu Qatada:
      3. The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So whoever has seen (in a dream) something he dislike, then he should spit without saliva, thrice on his left and seek refuge with Allah from Satan, for it will not harm him, and Satan cannot appear in my shape.” Volume 9, Book 87, Number 124: Narrated Abu Qatada:
      4. Muhammad said that Satan stayed in the upper part of a nose all night.
      1. The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      5. Muhammad said a cock crows because it has seen an angel and donkeys bray because they have seen Satan.
      1. The Prophet said, “When you hear the crowing of cocks, ask for Allah’s Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek Refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 522: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      6. Muhammad said that Satan touches all human offspring making them cry.
      1. Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (3.36) Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641:Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:Also, same thing at Volume 6, Book 60, Number 71:, Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
      7. Muhammad said that devils spread out at night time and that Satan does not open a closed door.
      1. Allah’s Apostle said, “When night falls (or when it is evening), stop your children from going out, for the devils spread out at that time. But when an hour of the night has passed, release them and close the doors and mention Allah’s Name, for Satan does not open a closed door. Tie the mouth of your water-skin and mention Allah’s Name; cover your containers and utensils and mention Allah’s Name. Cover them even by placing something across it, and extinguish your lamps.” Volume 7, Book 69, Number 527: Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah
      8. Muhammad said a child born from a union where a parent said a “phrase,” Satan cannot harm the child.
      1. The Prophet said, “If anyone of you, when intending to have a sexual intercourse with his wife, says: ‘Bismillah, Allahumma jannibna-sh-shaitan, wa jannibi-sh-shaitan ma razaqtana,’ and if the couple are destined to have a child (out of that very sexual relation), then Satan will never be able to harm that child.” Volume 8, Book 75, Number 397: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
      9. Muhammad said that during sleep Satan ties knots at the back of the head.
      1. Allah’s Apostle said, “During your sleep, Satan knots three knots at the back of the head of each of you, and he breathes the following words at each knot, ‘The night is long, so keep on sleeping,’ If that person wakes up and celebrates the praises of Allah, then one knot is undone, and when he performs ablution the second knot is undone, and when he prays, all the knots are undone, and he gets up in the morning lively and gay, otherwise he gets up dull and gloomy.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 491: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      10. Muhammad said that Satan peed in the ear of a man.
      1. It was mentioned before the Prophet that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet said, “He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 492: Narrated ‘Abdullah:ï’
      11. Muhammad said Satan can not impersonate him in a dream.
      1. The Prophet said, “Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my Kunya name (i.e. Abu-l Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.” Volume 1, Book 3, Number 110: Narrated Abu Huraira: Also at Volume 8, Book 73, Number 217: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      12. Muhammad said earthquakes and afflictions come out of the side of the head of Satan.
      1. (The Prophet) said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen.” People said, “Our Najd as well.” The Prophet again said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen.” They said again, “Our Najd as well.” On that the Prophet said, “There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan.” Volume 2, Book 17, Number 147: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
      13. Muhammad choked Satan
      1. The Prophet once offered the prayer and said, “Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him. Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon, ‘My Lord ! Bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me.’ Then Allah made him (Satan) return with his head down (humiliated).” Volume 2, Book 22, Number 301, Narrated Abu Huraira
      14. Muhammad said Satan passes wind and runs so he may not hear the Adhan (call to prayer).
      1. Allah’s Apostle said, “When the Adhan for the prayer is pronounced, then Satan takes to his heels passing wind so that he may not hear the Adhan and when the Muadh-dhin finishes, he comes back; Volume 2, Book 22, Number 313: Narrated Abu Huraira,
      o Allah’s Apostle said, “When the call for prayer is made, Satan takes to his heels passing wind so that he may not hear the Adhan and when the call is finished he comes back, and when the Iqama is pronounced, Satan again takes to his heels, Volume 2, Book 22, Number 323, Narrated Abu Huraira:
      15. Muhammad said that when praying while standing, Satan puts doubts into the person.
      0. Allah’s Apostle said, “When anyone of you stands for the prayers, Satan comes and puts him in doubts till he forgets how many Rakat he has prayed. So if this happens to anyone of you, he should perform two prostrations of Sahu while sitting. Volume 2, Book 22, Number 324: Narrated Abu Huraira:
      16. Muhammad said that Satan can reach into a person’s body the same as blood reaches it.
      0. Safiya, the wife of the Prophet told me that she went to Allah’s Apostle to visit him in the mosque while he was in Itikaf in the last ten days of Ramadan. She had a talk with him for a while, then she got up in order to return home. The Prophet accompanied her. When they reached the gate of the mosque, opposite the door of Um-Salama, two Ansari men were passing by and they greeted Allah’s Apostle . He told them: Do not run away! And said, “She is (my wife) Safiya bint Huyai.” Both of them said, “Subhan Allah, (How dare we think of any evil) O Allah’s Apostle!” And they felt it. The Prophet said (to them), “Satan reaches everywhere in the human body as blood reaches in it, (everywhere in one’s body). I was afraid lest Satan might insert an evil thought in your minds.” Volume 3, Book 33, Number 251: Narrated Ali bin Al-Husain: Also, see 254
      17. Muhammad said affliction comes out of the side of Satan’s head.
      0. The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to ‘Aisha’s house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, “Affliction (will appear from) here,” and, “from where the side of the Satan’s head comes out (i.e. from the East).” Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336: Narrated ‘Abdullah:
      1. I saw Allah’s Apostle pointing towards the east saying, “Lo! Afflictions will verily emerge hence; afflictions will verily emerge hence where the (side of the head of) Satan appears.” Volume 4, Book 54, Number 499: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:


      Insist that violent passages in the Quran only apply to long-ago historical incidents (like the battle of Badr), but then also insist that the Quran is a book of guidance “for all times and all people.”

      Insist that Muhammad’s actions can’t be judged by today’s more humane human rights standards, while at the same time, insist that he is the perfect “Model for all Mankind” today.

      Insist that Islam is a “religion of peace”, while at the same time, brag about the great military victories of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Khalid bin Al-Waheed and Saladin.

      Insist that Islam is “not a missionary religion”, while at the same time publish endless articles about “how to do dawah” on hundreds of dawah websites. (dawah means invitation to Islam)

      Insist that “truth stands from error” and that Islam can stand on its own merits as the “one true religion”, while laboring endlessly to squash all criticism and discussion of Islam.

      Insist that the laws in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan are unIslamic while trying to get them implemented in the west, India and other kafir societies.

      Insist that women achieve TRUE liberation through Islam! Never mind those pesky ideas about real equality with men in all areas of life, men and women are so different, and shari’ah “realistically” acknowledges these differences, unlike those evil man-made law systems that suggest otherwise!

      Insist how “liberating” it is for women to wear a piece of cloth on their heads.

      Insist that Jihad has nothing to do with violence. It’s simply struggling with pen, tongue etc. at the same time looking for atomic bomb to use in Kafir countries.

      Insist that most of the scientific inventions were foretold in Quran but no one ever invented anything out of Quran.

      Insist that Muslims should enjoy all human rights and make infinite number of mosques in western countries but ban Kafirs from Mecca and Medina. Preaching of any other religion is not allowed in any Islamic country .

      Insist that women in Islam are privileged in an unparalleled manner and their equality with men have never been achieved in history like it was done in Islam, yet use every trick in the book to show that they lack the wisdom and fair judgment of men and consequently, men must reserve the right to BEAT them if they go astray, of course as a “last resort”.

      Insist that Islam is against slavery and then demonstrate how humanely Muhammad treated HIS SLAVES as proof of it.

      Insist that Islam “Is a complete way of life”, not just a religion. But when others criticize things like the burka and honor killings, say that it’s the fault of “culture”, not Islam.

      Insist that the Quran is the word of god, is protected against corruption, and is unchanged since Muhammad’s death, despite the existence of multiple versions and histories attesting to changes that were made

      Insist in demanding for more rights and perks from kafirs in kafir countries via freedom of religion, while condoning the killing of the kafirs in Islamic countries and preventing them from following their religion.

      Insist that Islam liberated women when no Islamic society treats them nicely.

      Insist that Islam will one day dominate the world when Muslim countries are sinking deeper in poverty and soon will face massive starvation.
      . Insist that Muhammad was a perfect role model and a Mercy of God among men and hide the fact that he lied, raped, tortured, killed, robbed and married a 6 year old child.

      Insist that Qur’an cannot be translated into any other tongue except Arabic, the language of God, when those who say this themselves do not know how to speak Arabic”

      Insist that Islam is a “way of life.” but never mind that this “way of life” is the way of life of a bunch of savage desert dwellers of the 7th century.

      Insist to subject oneself in full surrender to Allah. Pray five times a day, fast for one month (sleep during day and feasts at night), read the Qur’an every day, expend years learning the “arts” of defecating, copulating and cleanliness and other useless rituals and dream of conquering the infidels and taking their money to compensate the consequences of one’s laziness and unproductiveness.

      Insist that terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not perpetrated by Muslims, but the countries who are the victims of the terrorist attacks deserve it because of their foreign policy towards Islamic countries.

      Insist on the evils of the Western culture and the virtues of Islam but at the same time do everything possible to immigrate to the West in order to escape oppression of the Islamic countries.

      Insist that Muslims are persecuted in Israel, India, Philippines, Thailand, etc. but continue expanding Islamic terrorism around the world

      Insist that Islam is a logical religion and everyone with pure motives will become a Muslim while forgetting that their own ancestors were forced to accept Islam and many were killed for resisting

      Insist that only Islam (Quran and Sahih Hadiths) is the Absolute Truth and that every other religious book is corrupted and unreliable, but at the same time try to ‘prove’ Islam by referring to the same “corrupted” sources that they decry.

      Insist that some of the Sahih (‘reliable’) Hadiths are actually not reliable at all but at the same time not recognizing the problems this poses for the claim that Sharia is the only valid legal system, as the Sharia laws are based for a large part on those Sahih Hadith collections.
      Insist that Islam has no superstitions while there are prescribed prayers and rituals to combat black magic, witchcraft, sorcery, evil eyes, stone throwing jinns etc

      Insist that kissing a black stone, walking several times around the kaba, throwing stones at a pillar and using prayer-beads has nothing to do with superstition.

      Insist that homosexuality is illegal in Islam and execute the homosexuals but insist pedophilia i.e. sex with boys is not homosexuality, practice it and hope to have “pearly boys” in Allah’s paradise.


      Prophet Muhammad’s declared that the majority of the inhabitants of Hell are women.[1] When asked why, he said it was because they are deficient in intelligence and religion, and because they are ungrateful to their husbands. Although apologists and female Muslims use a lot of creative arguments to explain away Muhammad’s declarations about women, they do not stand up to scrutiny. Here we will present evidence showing Muhammad’s belief that all women are less intelligent than their male counterparts; as well as examine and refute the common Muslim claims about the ahadith in question.
      1.Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

      Ahadith evidence
      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
      Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer.

      Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).”

      They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?”

      He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.”

      The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?”

      He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?”

      They replied in the affirmative.

      He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?”

      The women replied in the affirmative.

      He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
      Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
      On ‘Id ul Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, “O people! Give alms.” Then he went towards the women and said. “O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He replied, “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.” Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Masud, came and asked permission to enter It was said, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is Zainab.” He asked, ‘Which Zainab?” The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas’ub. He said, “Yes, allow her to enter.” And she was admitted. Then she said, “O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Masud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else.” The Prophet replied, “Ibn Masud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else.”
      Sahih Bukhari 2:24:541

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
      The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
      Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826


      Yusuf Ali: O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, – his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

      Pickthal: O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you in (terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.

      Shakir: O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things
      Qur’an 2:282

      Apologetic Claims
      Muhammad was referring to that specific group of women only
      Here is a video from Rasha Al-Disuqi, a West Coast based professor, author, and activist.[2] Her topic was “Rights of Muslim women and their rights in society”.

      In the above video she makes two claims:

      “Not a blanket statement for all Women”

      That hadith was said at a specific time, during a specific situation, addressing a specific group and it was not meant to be as a blanket statement.

      There is absolutely no evidence that Muhammad’s statements in the ahadith were directed at that specific group of women because:

      1.Muhammad’s sole piece of evidence for this statement is Allah’s mandate in Qur’an 2:282 which states that two women are required to give evidence in the absence of a man; this is to say that the testimony of one woman is equal to 1/2 of a man’s testimony. Nowhere in that verse does it say “This is for the women of Muhammad’s time” or “this is only for a specific group of women.”

      If the Qur’an is a book for all time, then the testimony of a woman is always the equivalent of 1/2 a man’s testimony in Islam. Therefore, for Muhammad to use this as evidence as to the deficiency of a woman’s mind proves that it was a “blanket statement” over all women who have and will ever live.

      2. In the same hadith (not the partial one) Muhammad tells the women that they are also deficient in religion. Islam is very much a works-based religion; every day of fasting ‘counts’ for your reward in heaven, every prayer, every ‘good deed’ (as outlined in the Qur’an). Since women are not allowed to pray or fast during their menses, this means that a woman doing every ‘good deed’ she is able to do, and a man doing every ‘good deed’ they are able to, will result in the man receiving a higher reward from Allah because he was able to do more religious deeds than the female.

      Do we also apply the “This was only for that specific group of Women” answer to Muhammad’s claim that women are also deficient in religion? Are women suddenly allowed to fast and pray when they are menstruating? We know they aren’t; so why should we apply one part of the hadith to that specific group of women when the second claim is clearly referring to all Muslim Women?

      3. Muhammad said “The majority of the dwellers of Hellfire are Women.” If these ahadith refer only to that group of women, then that group must have been extremely large. Think about how many women have and will exist on this earth throughout time. Now, the majority of the people in Hell are supposedly from this one group of Women that Muhammad was addressing? Where then are the pagans, the atheists, Christians, Jews and hypocritical Muslims? Where are the men? How big was this group of women?

      Muhammad was clearly making a blanket statement about all women.

      Scans of male and female brains prove it was only for that group
      Look at an X-RAY or MRI for that matter, you’ll find that both [male and female] brains are the same; why should they be deficient in any way? Women who are smarter, more intellectual in many fields. THAT argument [ that Muhammad was referring to all women ] is a failure.

      This argument is illogical: because modern science has shown us that there is no ‘deficiency’ in a female brain, then Muhammad could not have been referring to every woman. This argument ignores the evidence in favor of a more palatable interpretation. The fact is, modern science and common sense prove Muhammad’s statements to be incorrect. They do not prove that Muhammad was referring to a specific group of women only; merely that Muhammad was wrong in making a blanket statement.
      Rasha then shoots herself in the foot by proving in one short sentence that Muhammad was wrong; she herself knows that women are not stupid; that they are equal to, or excel men in many fields. But, in order to remain under the influence of someone who called her ‘deficient’ , she must use current knowledge in order to ‘spin’ Muhammad’s words.

      In essence, when she says “That argument is a failure” she is acknowledging that Muhammad was completely wrong to make such a claim.

      Muhammad was using hyperbole to scare women into giving alms
      But the Prophet (peace be upon him) was also being playful in his use of strong terms to impress this teaching on the listeners. Ruqayyah Waris Maqsud writes, “After the Farewell Pilgrimage at the Eid prayer, the Prophet walked past the men leaning on Bilal’s arm, and came to the rows of women behind them. Bilal spread out a cloth and the Prophet urged the women to be generous with their gifts of charity, for when he had been allowed a glimpse into the flames of Hell, he had noted that most of the people being tormented there were women.

      The women were outraged, and one of them instantly stood up boldly and demanded to know why that was so. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘you women grumble so much, and show ingratitude to your husbands! Even if the poor fellows spent all their lives doing good things for you, you have only to be upset at the least thing and you will say, ‘I have never received any good from you!’ (Bukhari 1.28, recorded by Ibn Abbas – who was present on that occasion as a child).

      At that the women began vigorously to pull off their rings and ear-rings, and throw them into Bilal’s cloth.”
      This is a very disingenuous presentation of evidence. This interpretation attempts to draw together two different sets of ahadith and present them as the same event. The first set is provided above. Here are the ones for this specific interpretation:

      Ibn ‘Abbas reported: I participated in the Fitr prayer with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and all of them observed this prayer before the Khutba, and then he (the Holy Prophet) delivered the sermon. Then the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) descended (from the pulpit) and I (perceive) as if I am seeing him as he is commanding people with his hand to sit down. He then made his way through their (assembly) till he came to the women. Bilal was with him. He then recited (this verse): O Prophet, when believing women come to thee giving thee a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah” (lx. 12) till he finished (his address to) them and then said: Do you conform to it (what has been described in the verse)? Only one woman among them replied: Yes, Apostle of Allah, but none else replied. He (the narrator) said: It could not be ascertained who actually she was. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted them to give alms. Bilal stretched his cloth and then said: Come forward with alms. Let my father and mother be taken as ransom for you. And they began to throw rings and ringlets in the cloth of Bilal.
      Sahih Muslim 4:1923

      Ibn ‘Abbas reported: I bear testimony to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) offering prayer before Kutba. He (after saying prayer) delivered the Kutba, and he found that the women could not hear it, so he came to them and exhorted them and preached them and commanded them to give alms, and Bilal had stretched his cloth and the women were throwing rings, earrings and other things. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ayyub with the same chain of transmitters.
      Sahih Muslim 4:1924

      Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the ‘Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama. He then stood up leaning on Bilal, and he commanded (them) to be on guard (against evil for the sake of) Allah, and he exhorted (them) on obedience to Him, and he preached to the people and admonished them. He then walked on till he came to the women and preached to them and admonished them, and asked them to give alms, for most of them are the fuel for Hell. A woman having a dark spot on the cheek stood up and said: Why is it so, Messenger of Allah? He said: For you grumble often and show ingratitude to your spouse. And then they began to give alms out of their ornaments such as their earrings and rings which they threw on to the cloth of Bilal.
      Sahih Muslim 4:1926

      It is true that Muhammad approached the women after prayer in both sets of ahadith; and that he asked them to give alms. However we note in the second set, not even once, does Muhammad make the same claims about Women’s intelligence or religion. He merely states that women are ungrateful in an effort to goad them into giving more charity. If these ahadith were narrations of the same event, you would expect a mention of intelligence or religion.

      Even if this explanation was right, it still doesn’t explain why Muhammad called women deficient in intelligence, and then directed them to the mandate in Qur’an 2:282 as evidence for this deficiency. If his aim was simply to get them to donate more money, surely a threat of hellfire and calling them ungrateful would have sufficed for his purpose; and evidently it did.

      Muhammad also knew that Hellfire was a great motivator to his followers; once he found a threat that worked, he milked it for all it was worth. Because of the discrepancies between the two sets of narrations, we can conclude that the two sets of narrations are from separate events; and that Muhammad simply re-used a scare tactic in order to get what he wanted.

      Deficiency is only about giving financial testimony

      Muhammad did say women are deficient in Intelligence. However, since his evidence was Quran 2:282, Muhammad was only referring to the deficiency of women when giving testimony for financial transactions.

      Qur’an 2:282 states that the second female witness is required (in lieu of a man) because the first woman may forget; therefore the second can remind her. This implies that women have bad memories and are prone, more so then men, to forget details. On first look, this explanation looks quite reasonable; however in the ahadith, Muhammad did not specify that the testimony of women, in financial cases only was the cause of their intelligence defects. If this were truly only about testimony for financial cases, then Muhammad would have specified this. His statement “Isn’t it true that the testimony of two women is equal to that of a man” strongly implies that two female witnesses are required for any type of testimony; and in no way implies that it is for financial testimony only.
      After all, if this is the deficiency in her intelligence; then Muhammad is clearly referring to the fact that Allah believes that women have bad memories; and this is the reason a woman is deficient.

      Muhammad was joking

      Muhammad knew that group of women very well, and as he would pass by them he would joke around with them. When he said that they were deficient in Intelligence and Religion he was joking around. They understood this.

      This is one of the most bizarre claims we’ve come across regarding these ahadith. When asked for evidence, the claimant is unable to do so. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence in the ahadith or elsewhere that this was an ‘in joke’ between Muhammad and these women.

      Muhammad also backs up these “jokes” with reference to the Qur’an, which he’d obviously take very seriously as the alleged prophet.


      Al-Tabari’s Tarikh
      In the discussion thus far we have presented Sahih (authentic) ahadith attributed to Muhammad and have demonstrated each hadith was intended to be applied to all women for all time. We have seen Muslims attempt to explain away this assertion and argue that the ahadith applied only to certain women or particular situations, and did not apply to all women for all time. Which is the truth? What is the original source of Muhammad’s view of women; where did it originate from?

      Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari is recognized as one of the greatest of all Islamic scholars. He not only wrote one of the most authoritative Tafsir (commentary of the Qur’an) but also wrote a history of the world (tarikh) from the Islamic worldview. Published in English as The History of al-Tabari (SUNY Press, NY) in 39 volumes, this work presents world history from the creation account up until al-Tabari’s death. When we consult al-Tabari’s tarikh we find the source of Muhammad’s view of women.

      When God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden, they were told to not eat of a certain tree. Eve was tempted by Iblis (Satan) to eat of the tree, and she then gave some to Adam to eat also. Adam and Eve try to flee from God because of shame after their private parts were exposed. From this act of disobedience of Eve came God’s curse on women.

      His Lord called out to him: Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, My Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world wound not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily.
      Al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 280-281

      In a lecture delivered by Saudi cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan, which aired on Al-Majd TV (June 11, 2007), he responds to the criticism made by ‘enemies’ of Islam against Muhammad’s “women are deficient” statement by confirming the account found in Tabari:

      The Prophet Muhammad said about women: “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you,” and so on. This hadith and others like it were misunderstood by the ignorant. Corrupt people interpreted it in a way that differs from its original intent. Because of their ignorance, their insolence, their stupidity, and because of their enmity towards Islam and Muslims, they turned this hadith into evidence that Islam disgraces women, diminishing her value, and describes her in inadequate terms.
      . . .
      These hadiths provide some of the most decisive evidence that Islam protects women and guarantees their rights. Islam has surrounded the woman with a fence of compassion and mercy. It has shown that the twisted nature of women stems from their very creation. This is how Allah wanted woman to be. Therefore, the husband must adapt himself to her and be patient with her. He should not giver her too many things to do, or things that she is incapable of doing. He should not make her do anything that is contrary to her nature, and to the way she was created by Allah. In addition, he should turn a blind eye to her mistakes, he should tolerate her slips and errors, and put up with all the silly ignorant things she might say, because this constitutes part of the nature of her creation. In addition, women have surging emotions, which in some cases, might overpower their minds. The weakness with which women were created is the secret behind their attractiveness and appeal to their husbands. It is the source of women’s seduction of men, and one of the elements strengthening the bond between husband and wife. This is one of the wondrous miracles of Allah: The strength of a woman lies in her weakness. Her power of seduction and appeal lie in her emotions, which might overpower her mind at times.
      . . .
      Both husband and wife should satisfy their spouse’s natural urges, and should try to gratify their desires, as long as nothing prevents this. This is why the Prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven.” Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another hadith says: “She must go to him, even if she is on the back of a camel.” She must go to him, even if she is riding.

      Husbands Should Put Up with Their Wives’ Slips and Errors, Because the Twisted Nature of Women Stems from Their Very Creation
      MEMRI TV, Clip No. 1483, Broadcast: June 11, 2007

      Qur’an 43:18
      Yusuf Ali: What! has He taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you sons for choice? When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) what he sets up as a likeness to (Allah) Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah)? And they make into females angels who themselves serve Allah. Did they witness their creation? Their evidence will be recorded, and they will be called to account!

      Pickthal: Or chooseth He daughters of all that He hath created, and honoureth He you with sons? And if one of them hath tidings of that which he likeneth to the Beneficent One, his countenance becometh black and he is full of inward rage. (Liken they then to Allah) that which is bred up in outward show, and in dispute cannot make itself plain? And they make the angels, who are the slaves of the Beneficent, females. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded and they will be questioned.

      Shakir: What! has He taken daughters to Himself of what He Himself creates and chosen you to have sons? And when one of them is given news of that of which he sets up as a likeness for the Beneficent Allah, his face becomes black and he is full of rage. What! that which is made in ornaments and which in contention is unable to make plain speech! And they make the angels– them who are the servants of the Beneficent Allah– female (divinities). What! did they witness their creation? Their evidence shall be written down and they shall be questioned.
      Qur’an 43:18

      It should be noted that some modern Muslim scholars interpret Qur’an 43:18 as a reference to female pagan idols or that Allah is still referring to the attitude of the pagans towards women.[3] However, the next verse (43:19) uses the same pattern – a statement of what the pagans believed followed by an interrogative alif (translated “What!”) and then Allah’s rebuttal (“did they witness their creation?”). Thus it seems more likely that in Qur’an 43:18 Allah is making what he thinks is a factual counter-argument rather than using what he believes is another false notion of the pagans to contradict their belief in daughters of Allah.


      The meaning of these ahadith is very clear. The Prophet Muhammad “blanketed” a statement over every single woman who has ever and will ever live. Despite many creative ways to explain away the meaning and implications of these ahadith, the actual evidence cannot be denied. Muhammad clearly said that women are deficient in intelligence because, in Islam, the value of their testimony is equal to that of half a man. If the Qur’an is a book for all people for all time, then that mandate stands; thus Muhammad was referring to all women in general; and not just a specific group of women.


      This set of ahadith clearly show Muhammad’s hatred for women. He implemented every rule he could think of to keep them under the control of men and in a state of humiliation. Look at the three reasons that Muhammad lists for women being in Allah’s Hell:

      The Qur’an was ‘revealed’ by Muhammad on behalf of his imaginary deity, Allah; thus Muhammad himself made the requirement that the testimony of two women is equal to a man. He then goes on to tell women that they will most likely end up in hell; because their intellectual deficiency, which he defined and imposed ‘safeguards’ against. No evidence; just “I said so!” What better way to belittle women than to continually remind them that they are ‘stupid’.

      Again, Muhammad himself ‘revealed’ the entirety of Islam; its rules, regulations and requirements, rewards etc.. What better way to keep women down? Tell them your works-based religion, that they cannot perform any of these good works (praying, fasting etc..) when they are menstruating. This keeps them in a state of fear, because they have to make up for the days they were unable to be ‘pious’; making them more submissive to Islam then men. Then you get Muhammad who comes along, after making this silly rule about menstruation; and tells women that most of them will end up in hell because of it. In essence, he’s saying that in his religion, women will end up in hell simply for being born female.

      Again, Muhammad wanted his wives; and all Muslim women within his reach (in case he wanted to marry them) to be as submissive to their husbands as possible. He scares them with threats of hellfire to make them more submissive, and fearful of Allah; thereby keeping women under the thumb of their husbands. As a result, to this day, Muslim women, and women in general, are thought of by Muslims as intellectually inferior to themselves. Perhaps this is why Muslim women especially are trying to twist the meaning of these ahadith and narrow down the testimony requirement in Quran 2:282; its either that or admit Muhammad was wrong.

      1.Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301
      2.Book review and Profile of Rasha al-Disuqi
      3.Tafseer Quran 43:18: does this verse view women negatively?


  8. This posting is incredibly nicely written, and it in addition consists of numerous beneficial information. I appreciated you are specialist manner of creating this blog post. Thanks, you have created it simple and easy for me to comprehend.


  9. I’m so pleased that I discovered your website.

    You certainly know what you’re talking about, and you made me feel like I need to learn more about this.


  10. I’ve been exploring for a little while for excellent articles or blogs on this
    kind of area. Exploring in Yahoo I finally came across this website.
    Looking over this info made me discovered just what I wanted.
    I will visit your site frequently.


  11. After study several of the blog posts on your website now, and
    I truly like your way of operating a blog. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back soon. Pls check out my web site as well and tell me what you think.


  12. Hi, I’m live streaming live streaming server,
    I discovered your blog by means of Google at the same time as looking for a similar
    topic, your web site got here up, it seems good. As a streaming service provider,I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

    Hello live streaming server, just become alert to your weblog thru Google,
    and found that Video streaming’s truly informative.

    I’m going to be careful for brussels. I will appreciate in the event you
    proceed tHi, I’m live streaming in future. Lots of other people shall be benefited out
    of your writing. Cheers!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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