Direct Link to Latest News


Sharia & Talmud Compared: A Muslim Reply

June 28, 2013

(left, Mosque)

"To compare the Shariah to Talmudic Law is a great insult,"
 says Mohammed Ash

(Editor's Note: I gauge religions not by what they "teach" but by how their followers behave. Generally speaking, I have great respect for Muslims because of their strong family values.)

by Mohammed Ash

Had I read the article "Talmud & Shariah Law" by John Kunkle on any other website, I would not have bothered to write in. But I read it on Henry Makow's website which I respect and have learned a lot from his books. If you search the web for information about Islam, you will notice that the NSA search engine otherwise known as Google, comes up with many negative search results, its usually websites that are claiming to "debunk" or "expose" Islam. I sometimes wonder: Is this Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein's idea at work i.e. to nudge people towards certain information in order to control the conclusions they come to. After all Albert Pike predicted World War Three would be caused between Muslims and Christians, where the two would mutually wipe each other out.

To compare the Shariah to Talmudic Law is a great insult. Islam forbids the system of usury for all people regardless of faith. Talmudic law forbids the lending at interest to fellow Jews but allows it for the Goyim (cattle). Non-Muslims in the Islamic law pay an additional tax, but in return they do not have to fight in wars or pay the compulsory charity on their savings at 2.5%. Many people twist the truth to deliberately portray Islam in a negative light.

One important principle that people need to understand. In Islam our primary source of law is the Quran which we believe is a direct revelation from God to mankind via the Prophet Muhammed. Muslims also accept that God sent guidance to humanity through the ages, through Prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc etc. Thus we accept the Torah, Injil , Psalms of David and Bible to all contain truths but sadly there has been tampering of the scriptures to suit the interests of the corrupt class of the time.

I would refer readers to "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman. This is not to say the Bible cannot be replied upon, but that the contradictions are not from God but from the people who manipulated the scripture to suit their own objectives. That's why the message was sent again via Muhammed, who Muslims believe to be the "comforter" who Jesus referred to when he said "if I do not go then the comforter will not come."

SHARIAH76.jpgThe secondary source of law in Islam are the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed. These are referred to as Hadith [where Sharia originates] and are known by the compilers names. Two of the most authentic are Bukhari and Muslim, named after the scholars of Hadith who compiled them. But general Scholars of Islam do not give these Hadith the same weight as the Quran which we consider the word of God. It is well known that despite the best effort of these Hadith scholars, some false and other "weak" sayings have slipped through into their compilations.

The final check of a Hadith is that if it contradicts the Quran it is rejected or viewed as suspicious at the very least. Nowhere does the Quran allow lying to one's wife; therefore the authenticity of the narration that you can lie to your wife has to be questioned. On the issue of war, we all know that the first casualty of war is the truth; war is indeed about deception. The Prophet himself always preferred peace over war, and there are many sayings that encourage genuine peace over war.

On the issue of lying when your life is at risk. There is a spectrum of faith for individuals. At the weak end Muslims can indeed lie if their life is in danger, as the situation is not about truth but about violence. But at the other end of the spectrum the Prophet said, "the best word is the word of truth spoken to the tyrant" and many pious Muslims died at the hands of tyrants for speaking the truth. The treaty that John claims the Muslims broke was actually broken by the Quraysh (non-muslim tribes) as they attacked a Muslim convoy and thus broke the treaty.


Scholars are human beings and they can make mistakes, but this should not tarnish an entire faith. The Muslim world is widely acknowledged to have greatly contributed to the renaissance in Europe. It was only when they went away from the teachings of their faith and accepted usury that their countries went into decline. Many Muslims countries are being bombed at present to install private central banks as has been done in Libya.

FOT.jpgWe have our problems namely our own "Protestant" movement, the Wahabi Islam installed by the British Empire. The very same Wahabi's who fought alongside the British against the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Thanks to the Saudi oil money this movement has been promoted around the world. Traditional Islam was slow to wake up to the threat but now these fanatics are being challenged far more often and a movement is afoot to get back to the real Islam.

The Prophet Muhammed said "whoever harms a non-Muslim in the Islamic state it is as if he has harmed me" To this day you will find ancient Christian and Jewish communities in Muslim lands. If there was any truth to the lie that Muslims force conversion or kill people for not becoming Muslim then you would not find these communities. Modern Muslim scholars say the verses that are referring to Jews AND Christians are referring to the modern Zionist Alliance between sections of these faiths.

In the Muslim lands, the institution of marriage and family is still intact, and western friends who visit these countries often comment how it reminds them of their grand parent's generation. This before the evil of Zionism laid waste to the family and marriage.

The Prophet Muhammed speaking of the Coptic Christians said "take care of the Christians, they are your kith and kin". He also spoke of sects arising in all faiths including Islam and that all religions would contain a truthful sect.

John Kunkle Replies:

Mohammed did not deny point by point any of the statements made in my article about specific Shariah laws with regard to non Muslims. Mohammed brought up usury. I never mentioned usury. If he is looking for differences between the Talmud and Shariah, he can find many. I was talking about the similarities between the two ecclesiastic laws as they are practiced (which is what the hadiths and tasfirs are about), particularly about dealings with people outside their culture.

Despite what Mohammed says, non-Moslems are second-class citizens in Moslem countries. I have been in Saudi Arabia. They will not admit Jews. They will admit Christians. However, you are not allowed to bring any religious books with you. While I was there, an Indian doctor, who was a Christian was arrested for having a private bible study in his own home. I used his medical services so I know the situation first hand.

As Mohammed well knows, you cannot celebrate a non-Moslem baptism, wedding, religious service, or burial in public in a Moslem country. You cannot ring church bells or display the Cross outside your church. You cannot put up a sign outside the church about services or even the name of the church. You cannot wear a cross. This does not even cover all the laws regarding non-Moslems I mentioned in my article that Mohammed did not address or deny.

 I will agree with Mohammed that the Scriptures were compiled into the Christian bible by St. Jerome as directed by Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. That is why the Prophet had to come according to Mohammed. When the Moslems took over land, they did so by the sword. The lands of the Middle East and Northern Africa were Christian lands at the time. They were given the option to convert or they were killed. The Prophet advocated spreading his religion from the east to the west by the sword. That does not sound like a religion of peace.

These places are now considered Dar-Islam - land of Islam, even though they were once Christian, and in the case of Israel and Judah, once Jewish lands. A religion spread by the sword is not a religion of peace. I am well aware of the Christians who spilled Moslem blood and continue to do so today. However, you cannot make the statement that this is only because Christians violated Dar-Islam.

The Moslems invaded France and they were only kept out of the rest of Europe by their defeat by Pepin the Short, Charlemagne's grandfather. Moslems also took nearly seven hundred years before conquering Constantinople (the center of the Christian Orthodox church) and were laying siege to Vienna before being pushed back into the Balkan countries.

Lastly, I will mention that Moslems are rapidly moving into European countries and America and are demanding Shariah law even though these countries are not Dar Islam -- at least not yet. As for images of Moslem terror, it is only necessary to peruse YouTube for any length of time to see radical Moslems in action. Yes, the vast majority of Moslems are not violent, but they are doing nothing to stop the fanatics or speak out about it (probably for fear of retribution), which is a tacit endorsement of their actions.

P.S. I am not trying to start a war on your site, but I consider Mohammed's comments completely inadequate as a response to my article. He is practicing Tafiqqa by trying to take the moral high road instead of dealing with the comparison of the Talmud and Shariah discriminating against people outside their culture. He knows he can't win that battle because it's true.


That's it folks!  The Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish agenda is to pit Christians against Muslims. The mandate of this site is to expose the danger represented by the (Masonic Jewish) central banking cartel. I will not be sidetracked by posting more divisive anti-Muslim or anti-Christian articles or comments.

Comments for "Sharia & Talmud Compared: A Muslim Reply"

David said (June 30, 2013):

To mistake Wahhabism for Islam is greatly misleading.

I know full well and many Muslim I came across are also well aware, that the kind of religious fanaticism controlling the holy places have got nothing to do with the true traditional teaching of Islam. In fact this overzealous way of practicing religion is equivalent to the puritans movement that spread across Christianity following the take over of England by Cromwell.

This is merely a way to exert an iron grip over the people, cleverly using religion as a facade to force upon them total submission toward their rulers... Anybody that studied Islam, even randomly knows that. Religious intolerance is something very recent in most Muslim countries. I've been to Jakarta in Indonesia many times, and I can't recall where on earth you can meet people more civilized !!!

All in all, judging traditional sharia law principles through their modern expression inside Wahhabism, is somewhat dishonest and completely inaccurate. I know you already aware of that, but I thought it was worth mentioning...

Safi from Jordan said (June 29, 2013):

I am compelled to point out a complete untruth written by Mr John Kunkle today, which is ignorance (at best) or an utter lie (at worst) and beyond belief: He writes

"As Mohammed well knows, you cannot celebrate a non-Moslem baptism, wedding, religious service, or burial in public in a Moslem country. You cannot ring church bells or display the Cross outside your church. You cannot put up a sign outside the church about services or even the name of the church. You cannot wear a cross."

This is an utter lie. Perhaps what he states is true for Saudi Arabia which he may hold as the totality of Islam. In Jordan where I live and hear church bells as I write, Christians hold all their celebrations publicly, services are advertised in Arabic outside the church, at Christmas all the muslim owned malls are covered in Christmas trees and decorations, the Christian communities in the Holy Land City of Madaba in Jordan for instance where there is a 1500 year old church hold numerous Christian events for all the Jordanian public. It is the same in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon. The most shameful of Kunkle's claims is that you cannot wear a cross in a muslim country. My Jordanian dentist, my Jordanian hairdresser and my Jordanian accountant here in Amman are all Christians. All wear the cross as a transparent sign of their faith, all have a beautiful picture of Christ in the waiting room of their practices, all delight us, their mainly Muslim clientele at Xmas with a Christmas tree in their office and offer traditional Eastern Xmas sweets, and all display a copy of the Holy Bible in their offices. The fact that my hairdresser, dentist, accountant and former lawyer are Christians in a 92% Muslim majority nation like Jordan shows that Christians are not barred from Jordanian universities and professions. While still not perfect it is still a barometer of freedom and acceptance of minority rights. For Mr Kunkle and other readers' information Christians often hold baptisms at the Baptism Site on the River Jordan & you can't get a more public place than that.

Omar said (June 29, 2013):

Anyone who still refers to Muslims as MOSLEMS is a person who at the least is still living in the early 20th century, or at worst is an ignorant bigot.

I am not for political correctness for sake of political correctness but if someone referred to African Americans as Negroes in this day and age, I would assume they purposefully chose the term to cause a stir, which it should.

Furthermore the Christians of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq and Egypt (prior to US invasion and Mubarak deposed) all have sizable Christian Populations which practice their faiths freely and openly, unlike Saudi Arabia, which is an outlier.

I was in Paris about 8 years ago and yes it was filled with foreigners, particularly North Africans, but these immigrants were French in almost every way except for their dark skin tones. the same can be said of the 400,000 Arabs here in Detroit, they are just as American as any other immigrant.

I am sad you allowed a bigot on your site, any of the insights he gave in his initial article (there were several good points he made) are now over shadowed by his bigoted and ignorant rebuttal to Mohammed.

Thanks though for at least allowing all sides to speak their minds.

SR said (June 29, 2013):

Hi , I am a regular reader of your excellent articles on the new world order conspiracy and related topics. Your views on the subject appeal to me because they largely converge with Islamic eschatology ( the dajjal (antichrist) and end times study). I consider it remarkable that your independent studies come to similar conclusions as traditional Islamic viewpoints. However , I was dismayed and surprised that you reproduced an article by Kanke comparing Talmudic law with shariah that was so misrepresentative of the reality of Islam.

If I was not more familiar with your views, I would have mistook you for someone promoting the new world order and all it entails! I feel that reproducing such a misinformed article on your otherwise reliable website could easily spread false views amongst your readers , and create division amongst Christians and Muslims , which is something you are clearly against. I could not help thinking that you somewhat endorsed the article by reproducing it on your website and feel it was very bad judgement by you.



I indicated in the Editor's Note that I knew nothing about Sharia Law and was posting this for discussion. Some Muslims have agreed that John has a point. We stirred up a hornet's nest but I hope something has been gained in terms of increased knowledge and awareness.


MH said (June 29, 2013):

John Kunkle is right by saying that the Sharia law is Satanic and we should avoid it at all cost.
He is also right in his conclusion that the Hadith can be very telling on how Islam of today is not the best religion in the world.

But he as most people walking this earth is utterly wrong by attacking Islam the religion in its pure state ,upheld by God's last scripture the Quran.

How can anybody read the Quran and come to the conclusion that it is bad,evil and all that?
It just baffles my mind.

Two verses people like him are able to dig up proves nothing other than,well...They can only find a few verses in the whole scripture which they can take out of context than point the finger and say hey look this proves this book is evil.

I can only imagine that these people find some kind of great satisfaction and joy in doing so,truly sad.

As for the Muslims, they are misguided by believing that the so called Hadith and Sunna (prophet Muhammed sayings and doings) are part of their religion.It is NOT.

This is like stating God's Scripture is not enough and we want something else,this is idolatry.

So the problem with the Muslims of today is ,they have disregarded the Quran ,they don't follow it. But follow manmade scripts and innovations and thus are totally misguided.Look into how many sects they have divided themselves in, and how poor and oppressed their people are.
Yet these people still don't get it.
They can't see that God is not on their side (for a good reason) as God promised that He would be,if only people would believe in Him,follow His Guidance and uphold His Laws.

In the Quran it reads,God never advocates injustice.

The Quran is for all people,it is the Guidance to the world.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at