The boy was in no way in danger or in harm's way.
Lucky bast@rd.

sexymoma: ah okokobioko

speak-ee-dee-english
I don't understand okokobioko

sexymoma: LMAO... K 350k

250K but I get to have a lap dance once a week.
final offer.

sexymoma: oh sorry wanted to type 500k

ogini? nah motor

abeg come down small

sexymoma: 50k

i offered 4 times that much initially.

are u a learner?

damaged goods if you asked me.

with the many birth control ovarian damaging pills this tramp has taken coupled with the herpes she got and the numerous abortions, i can safely say she is infertile.

sexymoma: sorry Come again

hmm. negotiations.
ok. gimme a figure.

donfineboi: True beauty lies in character not appearance. Many guys don't understand, that's why they jump from one lady to another. I appreciate people by their personality not but their physical appearance. If you need someone to talk to n cheer u up here's my BB pin 324CB98D


Always lift your head up and never feel down because of what people think. True beauty is in deeds not looks. You are beautiful

u slimey h0rny dude

sexymoma: Ladies can na

are you that flexible?

lets start with a regular debit card of say 200k per month.

waddya say?

sexymoma: ah ah so far there is love

unless she can do this with me

http://i.imgur.com/okOdOkG.gif

i love fat flabby puzzies.

warm, moist and soft flabby vulvas and huge clitz

Another reason Africans should turn away from Islam.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zM_MzkLKPY

Well, in so many ways the liberal politically correct and Arab tax paying money grabbing British Govt brought this on themselves.

Enjoy your multiculturalism turned Shari Republic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8

when white people become muslim you get albania

when arabs become muslim you get saud

when indians become muslim you get pakis

when blacks become muslim you get this shit.

alnaijiri:

If you believe in your religion, anyone who doesn't is by definition an infidel. I believe that Islam is the way God our Creator wants us to live our lives. So, if one isn't a Muslim, one isn't fulfilling the will of God. It has nothing to do with respect. I may respect you, but if you are not a Muslim, then you are an infidel.

To Muslims, it is an intolerable shame to be ruled by infidels and live under the jurisdiction of non-sharia laws. Since God created this world, we should follow His laws and not those of man.

True Muslim rite there.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=64f_1369272177

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=84b1eaf67e5d" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. This is why Muslim apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret the Quran without their "assistance" - even while claiming that it is a perfect book.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage".

One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

BoboYekini: Give me a rabid terrorist over a 'moderate' Islamist any day. At least the terrorist will present himself and can be subsequently put down like the dog he is. But these sneaky, sly moderates, gaddem , I don't even have a word for how I loathe them.

They (so-called moderates) give the islam a false human face and you can bet your last buck that you will never see a moderate come out openly and denounce these criminals.

Violence

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

After his eviction by the Meccans, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries. Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time:

[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers. However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to:

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him... (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425)
According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months:

The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)
Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation "from Allah" that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use):

They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Qur'an 2:217)
Notice that the Qur'an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were "persecuting" them by preventing them from the 'sacred mosque' (the Kaaba). The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries. This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense.

For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs - rather than exacting revenge and stealing. Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. (The 1976 movie, “The Message,” explicitly perpetuates this misconception as well).

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft. This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were "taking back what was theirs" but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property. In fact Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans:

A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by...” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan specifically included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslim before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier. A fifth of the loot was also given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425).

Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having been drawn largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location. As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law:

Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335)
So, if the Muslims at Medina weren't trying to recover stolen goods, why then were they plundering Meccan caravans? Muhammad provides the real reason for the looting and the killing:

“If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’ They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426)
Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was the ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba). The innocent caravan drivers were therefore fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership.
This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr:

When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria. Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians.
Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others. The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans. By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians. Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.

Stealing

After being chased out of Mecca, Muhammad and his small band of followers sought refuge in Medina, where he was accepted as a mediator between disparate factions. In order to make ends meet, he raided caravans carrying goods from Syria to merchants in Mecca, taking what he wanted and killing or capturing whoever resisted. Aside from establishing the rule that stealing from non-Muslims is permissible, Muhammad's raids also laid a firm foundation for Islamic terrorism.

In later battles, Muhammad ordered his men to set aside a fifth of whatever they were able to take from a conquered population and give it to him. This is how he eventually accumulated great wealth (which his eleven widows did not inherit, even though they were forbidden from remarrying).

As Wafa Sultan puts it: Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it (A God Who Hates).

The legacy of Muhammad's raids makes the property rights of non-Muslims extremely tenuous.
For centuries, the Muslim empire subsisted on war booty (Maal-e-Ghanimat) and jizya extorted from the labor of conquered people. In Western countries today, radical Muslims often live on public benefits - perhaps the best example being Anjem Choudary of Britain. What could be wrong with stealing from the infidel?

Consider this remarkable excerpt from a recent televised sermon by Abu Ishak al Huweini:
"We are at a time of Jihad; Jihad for the sake of Allah is a pleasure, a true pleasure. Mohammed’s followers used to compete to do it. The reason we are poor now is because we have abandoned jihad. If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on Earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham,. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads (meaning slavery). No one can make that much money in one deal (from hard work) even if a Muslim goes to the West to work or do trade. In time of need, that is a good resource for profit."

Anwar al-Awlaki, a cleric born and raised in the United States and once held up as an example of moderate Islam, instructs his followers not to steal for the sake of self-enrichment, but rather for the cause of Jihad:
"The reasoning behind comparing booty to hunting and wood gathering is because the property which exists in the hands of the disbelievers is not considered to be rightfully theirs in our Islamic shari’ah because of their disbelief and when Islam does give them the right to own it, it is an exception to the rule such as in the case of ahl al-dhimma after they pay jizyah. This is why our scholars say that Allah has called booty as "fai’" which means "to return", so they say that the property of the disbelievers that doesn’t belong to them has "returned" to the believer: its "rightful owner."

BoboYekini: Look at this punk. snivelling closet terrorist like you. Who mentioned anything about apologising? Your statement reeks of that malingering tacit approval that you pretentious 'moderate' moslems give to these babaric mad men. And then of course you have collections in private to finance terror.

I have a post here on this thread on Muslim Lies.
I knew it will come in handy soon.

The Qur'an:

Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance.

Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...?

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism.

Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims.

Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why ban thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?..." Another remarkable verse of sexual convenience concerns an episode in which Muhammad's wives were jealous of the attention that he was giving to a Christian slave girl. But, as he pointed out to them, to neglect the sexual availability of his slaves was against Allah's will for him!

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle.


From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given.

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and handle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to handle a child.

Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's handling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating.

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together.

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted).