Satyen says: April 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm
A call to Muslim women/girls
Understand Islam to rescue yourself and others from the slavery of Muhammad. Many of Muslim zealots have expressed their opinions on Islam and have cursed others for showing them the mirror. One may wonder, why the Muslim zealots react so emotionally and aggressively, usually abusing and using filthy language against anyone who is in disagreement with them. I have frequently seen them using expletive words instead of logical arguments to prove their point. After some deliberations, I have tried to put the reasons behind their immature behaviour. I would like to share with the interfaith family members.
First let’s have scan the usual arguments of Muhammad followers against those who criticize them. I have enumerated some of the common objection they put forth:
1. As they are non-Muslims, they speak against Islam.
2. The non-Muslims don’t understand what Islam is. They should read Quraan/Hadiths and tafseers to know the truth.
3. You are quoting from the anti Muslim sites.
4. Only Allah knows the truth.
5. The terrorists don’t represent the real Islam.
6. Islam is a peaceful religion and has been propagated by peaceful means. Killing even a single innocent is like killing the whole humanity.Islam respects women.
I fully agree that there could be some amount for truth in their argument that non-Muslims are anti-Muslims or they don’t understand what Islam is. So, let’s discard the non-Muslims altogether and devise a way to know Islam that is impeccable and no body except the brainwashed ones, could doubt it. Also agreed that only the Muslims can be true interpreters of Islam.
The acceptance of the fact that only the Muslims are the true interpreters of Islam poses a new difficulty and makes the situation even confounded. The reason is there are 73 sects in Islamand all of them interprete it differently. Nay, they all claim that only their sect is the true representative of Islam and all others are mistaken i.e a candidate of hell fire! So, all of the sects of Islam are exclusive to one another. That means, if you pick any one of them, for example Shias, they will claim sole to be the true interpreters of Islam and any other interpretation by other sects of Islam will be wrong. Opposing their claim, there will be 72 other sects of Islam who will counter argument tooth and nail and will claim the Shias to be greatly mistaken. Even they won’t shy to call the Shias, Kafirs and a candidate of Hell fire. Similar is the case with the Sunnis, Ahmadias and Sufis and so forth.
To summarize, for every interpretation of Islam, there are 72 counter interpretation of the same Islam by the Muslims themselves! The moot question is which of the sects represent the true Muslims? Well, everybody should think nowwhy there is so much confusion about a so called holy book propagated by the so called the best of the persons ever walked on the face of the earth. All the Muslims believe in the Muhammad’s prophet-hood and the divinity of the Quraan and still unsure about the true message? Where lies the problem. There is hardly so much hullabaloo about any religious book than Quraan, so much so that most of the Muslims killed so far has been killed by none other than the Muslims themselves! What an evil cycle of puzzle comes one after another in solving one!
To resolve the conundrum, let’s have a bird’s eye view of Islam with an objective mindset i.e. as a curious observer. The key to Islam is the word ‘ISLAM’ itself. Islam in Arabic means ‘Surrender’. So every true Islamic follower must surrender to Allah. Once they surrendered, they become a follower of Allah as there is no room for logic or rationality for those who surrender. Hence, thinking and surrendering are more or less antithesis to each other.
But this is the half of the story though. Further curiosity puts another query – is it really Allah whom the Muslims surrender? In response to this question all the Muslims will say instantly that Muslims surrender to Allah alone. So far so good. However, how can one surrender to Allah without any communication with Allah? Has any Muslim communicated Allah, or at least is there any possibility that any Muslim will be able to establish sort of communication with Allah in his/her life time? The answer to this question is an emphatic ‘No’. Only exception is Muhammad who could have not only communicated or had a glimpse of Allah but also he had a detailed conversation with Allah face to face. Not only that, Muhammad received instruction from Allah for approximately 22 last years of his life and served as the interface between the Muslims and the Allah!
So, only way to communicate with Allah is by means of Muhammad. Even Allah has to work in favour of Muhammad’s recommendation in alloting paradise to the believers. So much so is the authority of Muhammad that even Allah cannot go against Muhammad, what to talk about a simpleton Muslim going agains the prophet! Therefore, though explicitly not mentioned but implied intention of Quraan is loud and clear – surrender to Muhammad and go to the paradise as Allah will be pleased with you. So surrendering Allah means actually surrendering to the words of Muhammad as Allah is only accessible through Muhammad.
The above discussion clarifies that in fact Islam means surrendering to Muhammad as it’s impossible surrendering to Allah in one’s lifetime. This is one of the very fundamental and unique characteristic of Islam and is generally overlooked by even the evry careful observer of Islam.
Having established the above mentioned basic charateristic of Islam that it’s for surrendering to Muhammad’s words, let’s analyze the implications of this complete surrender to the prophet. In fact the implications have been proved to be far reaching. As we have seen earlier, that the word ‘Surrender’ doesn’t leave any scope for logical or rational discussion/thinking but implies only blindly following. Therefore, surrendering to Muhammad means no questioning to Muhammad or his words, just blindly following him. This fact implies that Muslims drifted away from rational and objective thinking and adopted the attitude of slavishly following to whoever they surrendered. They became dumb and deaf followers of their sect’s interpretation of Muhammad’s words. They discarded all the counter arguments and followed their sect only. Ultimately this gave rise to ideological petrification immune to other’s arguments/comments. This is the primary reason why the Muslim sects don’t listen not only to one another but also to non-Muslims. They just thrust their words upon others. The Muslims don’t argue anybody to arrive at the conclusive truth, but to prove their sect’s interpretation right and supreme.
There is no scope of objectivity and hence it leads to vituperative language and demeaning others. This explains their typical lines as given below:
1. You are foolish and you don’t have brain.
2. You don’t know anything about Islam
3. Read Quraan/Hadith and tafseers.
4. You will go to hell fire
5. Your religion is the worst and your God is fake.
6. You are idolators and believe in many gods.
7. You are dirty, ugly, black dwarfs and checken hearted
In short, the Muslims are unable to comprehend and consequently accept even the logical and rational counter arguments that are supported with facts and illustrations.
The implications of the Muslim psyche as presented above has been catastrophic, especially for the women folk and the non Muslims. To understand it fully, a brief critical analysis of Islamic tenet will be helpful.
Having established himself at the driver’s seat of his cult, Muhammad devised the strategem to propagate it. He utilised the two most powerful motivating agents of majority of males – wealth and sex. It was necessary to motivate the males in warfare and a share of wealth and women of the war spoils could attract the males for Jihad i.e. propagating the Muhammad’s empire. He shelved away all the morality whatsoever to achieve his goals. For example his followers were allowed to capture the women during/after the wars forcefully marrying them and even raping the kafir women slaves.The best tool he utilized was his proclaimation of revelation as a result of his direct communion with Allah. This made his orders unquestionable and anyone questioning his prophet-hood was not only beheaded but tortured mercilessly before the death. That’s why Allah was considered merciful even when killing the kafirs as the death was more acceptable than continuing with the unbearable torture! This strategy worked exceedingly fine as the male followers had nothing to lose in following Muhammad as they got all the amenities at the cost of Kafirs and the women’s repression.They collected the spoils of war in the form of wealth and women in unrestrained sexual pleasure. In return they had only to convert the kafirs and spread the message that Muhammad is their prophet. Those who didn’t accepted the cult, lost their lives and the women. Consequently, this forced conversion of Kafirs and the forced impregnating the women, multiplied their number with leaps and bounds.
This strategy worked for the propagation of the Islamic cult in two ways. If the Kafirs converted, it added to the number of Muslims. Otherwise, the Kafir women were looted and married/enslaved to the Muslims. the women were forced to beget as many children as possible. All the women irrespective of their religion were turned into a pleasure dolls and the factory, producing Muslim soldiers. These future Muslim soldiers produced by the women victims of Muhammad, brought in more women. Thus, this ideology gave rise to a vicious cycle. further, the victim Muslims got used to this life style and helplessly accepted to fulfill the two purposes (being pleasure dolls and giving birth to perpetrators of the humanity) of the Muslims. This dual role of the Muslim women has continued over the centuries uninterrupted since the time of Muhammad. In fact the Muslim women has played a crucial logistical role of supplying the soldiers for the spread of Islam and so it was important to ensure their support. All the attrocities on the women are aimed to safeguard the interests of Islam. The fairy tales of miracles of Muhammad, paradise and hell fire were concocted to retain the women. Even the most unpleasant and inhuman societal environments were created to make the women servile so that they cannot backtrack from their role of logistical support to the Islam’s propagation.
The Muslim women have endured all the attrocities in return to nothing but darkness, here and hereafter. In this present life, they are the sex dolls for their husbands and beget children one after another. Hereafter, nothing is there for them in the paradise as well. Though their husbands will be sporting with 72 virgin women and the boys, the Muslim women will remain lonely with no such privileges, just as a mute spectators of all these! All the bodily pleasures of the paradise won’t give any solace to them in their solitary life in paradise.
Now, the question is why this situation of the Muslim women continued for centuries? The answer is simple. The victim i.e. the Muslim women started working for the predators over the period. It is understandable that they had to do it helplessly having no other option than to die or undergo severe torturous life. Also, a lack of communication between different parts of globe make it virtually impossible to know the nature of Islam and its effects. The followers of Muhammad took advantage of it and spread the concocted stories of Muhammad’s miracles along with their cunning strategies. thus Islam spread far and wide within a century.
Several centuries have passed and now it has taken a turn from its usual course. After witnessing so much in favour of Muhammad and against the women, time has come to cross roads with opportunities for those who want to free themselves and breath in fresh breez after a long hiatus. With arrival of scientific revolution in the field of communication, it’s possible to spread the truth of Islam. Unfortunately, the Muslim women are still working for the predators. Ironically, they are converting a neutral person into a predator by meticulously planning for his conversion! When they fall in love with the so called Kafirs they try to drag them to Islam instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to rescue themselves and help others in freeing from the earthly hell fire. Once in Islamic fold, males taste the advantages of being a Muslim male and start behaving Muslim way. So, still most of the victims are still working for the predators. How can this end the era of inhumanity started by Muhammad?
However, there is the silver lining even in this pessimistic atmosphere. There is the light at the end of the tunnel and this light is none other than the awakening of the Muslim women. first they must realize that only they can rescue themselves. Especially the educated and enlightened women have a bigger role to play in this operation ‘Rescue Muslim Women’. First they must realize that that only they can rescue themselves by assisting each other and taking help from other like minded people who don’t want to live under the enslaving yoke of Muhammad. Understand it fully well that root cause of your present fate is non other than Muhammad and his words in the form of Quraan/Hadith followed religiously by his entourage for their vested interests. To win the war against your enemy, know your enemy fully well by reading the biography of Muhammad and his lifestyle especially his marital affairs, with an open and analytical mind. Once you have understood him fully well, move forward to act. Without any forward action, you will remain where you have been for the centuries.
You must devise a way how to come into action. Some of the steps you can start with is as given below:
1. Befriend as many educated and free thinking Muslim women as possible through various means – in schools, work places, parties, internet, networking etc.
2. Make it clear that root cause of women’t problem is Muhammad and there is no other way than to discard him fully in order to improve your situation and lead a respectful life with equality. Always make a clear cut distinction between Allah and Muhammad. Allah is supreme and compassionate so He cannot give you hell fire and will give you paradise here and hereafter. On the other hand, Muhammad was not a prophet but a lunatic and superstitious at his best and open to questioning regarding his behaviours. Get the support of all the women you know – in your family, relatives, friends, women’s organisations.
3. Form women’s organisations in every town or village. Start with even three or four women and campaign to multiply the numbers. fix a target to contact at leas one new member every week/month and the number will swell sooner than later. Whenever any issue relating to you comes up, take help of this organisation. Try to associate some influencial like minded people with your group.
4. Propagate analytical views on Islam and the women to as many as possible.
5. Marry to only those Muslim men who don’t consider Muhammad as prophet or have regard for him. It’s better to marry in court even with a Muslim as it will safeguard your future interests.
6. Shun all the inhuman and unscientific practices in Islam such as, circumcision, Burqa/Naqab, marrying cousin etc. jnever marry somebody who is looking for a proof of virginity and is not willing to give proof of his own virginity.
7. Celebrities should help in this cause at the forefront with caution.
The above are just the examples and are not exhaustive. Go for brainstorming sessions in your organisations/groups and come up with novel ideas to achieve your rightful goals.
Allah bless you all. -Satyen
More information: Hindu-Muslim Marriage, Sharia, Muslim-Hindu marriages, Hindu-Muslim lovers’ experiences, Koran on Hindus? Hindu girl-Muslim boy, Marriage & Divorce laws.
Return to Home, Blogs, How to Share? Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Book, Media.
To know Hinduism visit :
http://www.hinduwisdom.info
Hello dear sisters,
I left Islam and married a black christian and presently having lovely kids and breathing in an environment of peace and freedom.
Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.
Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive “out of context” defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.
Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website http://www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).
But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.
10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.
Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)
In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.
Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: “Pluck Out,” “Very Sharp,” and “Death.” Two other swords from elsewhere are named: “Sharp” and “That is wont to sink” (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called “Sharp” and “Having the vertebrae of the back.” This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.
Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: “Most conducive to ease, or wide,” “white,” and “of nab wood” (species of tree from which bows are made).
The name of a coat of mail implies “ampleness” or “redundant portions,” probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).
Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: “The obliterator.”
Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.
This article explains Christ’s attitude about swords more thoroughly, as does this one. Certainly he never fondled swords or nicknamed them, displaying them proudly, delighting in them.
Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)
The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.
However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.
Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.
Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):
Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim no. 4194)
Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4].
Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her … (Muslim, no. 4206)
It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.
For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.
Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)
Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).
Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands “fear” highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:
Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:
“He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.” (Muslim no. 2127)
For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article, which has many links to modern discussions of this policy (scroll down to the end).
This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article written by an Arab Christian is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics, offering many translations of 4:34.
Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:
Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, “A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards.” (Bukhari and note two other hadith below this one).
A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.
Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams. (Bukhari and note the three hadith below this one)
The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, “God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!” (Bukhari, see this parallel hadith here)
Some commentators are quick to say that an “egg” is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.
For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.
Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.
These two poets represent others in early Islam.
March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt
Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
March 624: Asma bint Marwan
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, “because they saw the power of Islam,” so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.
In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).
However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a “positive” way?
For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.
Go here, here, here, and here for more information on three of the assassinations of poets, along with other assassinations of non-poets. This page has some links to articles about how Muhammad dealt with his personal enemies.
Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.
5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)
According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies “fighting” and “corrupting” the land.
Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.
This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.
For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. This shorter article explains the background of these verses and this gruesome law. Muhammad tortured people.
Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.
A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.
W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:
The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)
It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)
Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans “passed through” Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.
To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).
For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.
Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.
Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a “virgin-rich” Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).
In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word “jihad” (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.
61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)
These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.
For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s “Martyrdom” on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.
Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.
After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.
The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)
Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:
16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)
Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.
For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article. This one explores Muhammad’s relations with the Jews, answering the standard replies by Muslims for their prophet’s indefensible atrocity (scroll down to “Politics, Warfare, and Conquests,” no. 5). See this series of articles for more information about Muhammad’s atrocity against the Banu Qurayza. This online index provides other links.
Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.
In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:
9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)
The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the “privilege” of living under the “protection” of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.
The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.
Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the “protection” tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.
Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.
For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).
Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.
What the ten reasons mean for us today
These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.
The theological implications are as follows:
First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.
Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the “pure” but violence-filled Quran over the “corrupted” but peaceful New Testament?
Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.
Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].
Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.
The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:
Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?
Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:
(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.
This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.
Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.
Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.
Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.
Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.
On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.
Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.
[ Note: This article has a companion piece: Does Islam improve on Christianity? — Muhammad fails Jesus’ simple fruit inspection. ]
Najneen
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=5153
Hi guys,
I am a former Muslim convert married to a Muslim man. He has no idea I do not believe in Islam any more. And I have no idea how to tell him… He is so happy and excited about his religion… Every little staff proved by modern science that had been mentioned in Islam, is a miracle for him. Do you imagine?
Yesterday he read an article that some parasites of pubic hairs are nearly extinct thanks to depilation. Then he made me a lecture, that in Islam it is obligatory to get rid off female pubic hairs bcs they have their periods and it is dirty and very dangerous for health, and favours the parasites and now the science proved it… Then he kept on saying “la illaha il la laa” and “allahu akbar” I am really sick of it, it is so stupid. Allahu akbar for depilation of pubic hairs.
I am sure he is a good guy deep-down, but he has few really disgusting habits. As I started to read the Quran really carefully and critically, I see where they come from. If I do not agree with him, he accuses me that I am stupid, or unbeliever, or that it is impossible to explain me anything bcs I will not understand… I hate it. What is more, in 3/4 of cases it showed out that I was right and he never apologized.
I left Islam, after I decided to break my husband’s conviction and I read criticism of Islam in secret. I found Sina’s site and I was shocked. Every unanswered question I had about Islam was answered on this site. I verified ahadith and quranic verses published, they were real. I could not believe how I let fool myself.
But I really do not know what to do about my husband. I love him; I would like him to wake up. If I question anything about Islam, he gets furious and tells me: you do not believe in god? You do not believe in his prophet? Why that stupid question? Also, he will never read your site, I am sure. If I point out some issue (cutting off right hand and left foot by terrorists in Mali is according to Islam), he tells they are Khawarij and stops the discussion. He does not read the Quran as I do (from the start to the beginning), in fact most of verses he has never read. I read it often in front of him so that he should join me and see it’s stupid. Sometimes he read one verse, then he is blubbering “la illaha illa laa”. He stokes me (?) because he likes me reading Quran and turns on his TV.
Please help me. I am scared to tell him directly, because the day I converted, he told me that there is no way back. That it is forever and I can never change my mind ever. I feel I have to make him believe it is his idea.. his doubts… his questions… What should I do?
PS: Please do not use my name from my email address. It is a nickname, but I am writing articles against islam on one blog in that name. I do not want them to be connected. Sign it “Lucy”.
Reply to Lucy at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=5132
Hello every body,
Islam is the most fun-loving religion as far as sexual activity is concerned. No wonder that it is the fastest growing religion among sex offenders in western prisons…
Muhammad was perfect example of a human being whose life should followed meticulous demands the Quran:
33.21: Mohammed is an excellent role model for you to follow.
3.31: If you love Allah then follow Muhammad and Allah will forgive your sins.
33.36: Rules and examples set by Allah and Muhammad is binding to all Muslims: there are no alternatives.
6.33: Rejecting Muhammad is rejecting Allah.
Therefore, following sunna and examples of the Prophet (PBUH) is mandatory for Muslims. Following them prepares the way, if not guarantees, paradise, whereas rejection of them leads to hell. Thus, it is utmost important to study what sexual practices were carried out by him in his life so that all Muslims can practice those sunnas and follow his footsteps.
GAY ACTIVITIES
Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi
According to this hadith, a (gay) man named Zahir, who used to say, “The prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest.”
Sunan Bayhaqi, which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man, who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”
Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”.
INCEST
Incest with daughters-in-law
http://www.islam-watch.org/copper.kid/Sex-with-Daughter-in-Law-How-Muhammad-Seduced-Zainab.htm
Incest with daughters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pLbhrl3ZY
PEDOPHILIA
Aya of pedophilia
65.4: If you divorce your (child) wife before she reaches menstruation, the age her idda is three months.
Sunan Nasai Bk of Marriage, No 3256:
A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls.
Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying: “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”
Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”
Even babies are halal
Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990:
A Muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her.
Sex with one-day-old bay
http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=103
MARITAL RAPE
Consent of a wife is not the requirement in Islam.
Mishkat, Arabic edition; Babu’n-Nika, p. 671
“When a man calls his wife, she must come, although she be at an oven.”
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 121:
The Prophet said, “If a man wants sex from his wife and she refuse it, then the angels send their curses on er till morning.”
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122:
The Prophet said, “If a woman refuses to have sex with her husband, then the angels send their curses on her till she submits to him.”
FRENCH KISSING
No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls” (Boutros)
A hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein (Boutros).
Musnad of Ibn Hanbal: “Muhammad would not sleep until he sucked the tongue of his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom.”
THIGHING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=tz3I9hhCXCI
Ref: http://www.islamic-fatwa.net Question 1809 [After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)]
As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her young age and small size. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.
(Source: http://www.sout-al-haqe.com/pal/musical/mofak…)
POLYGAMY
Prophet had nine wives when he died. Quran allows changing of wives at will. The only condition to change your wife is to let her keep what you gifted her (aya 4.20).
PLEASURING WHILE FASTING
34 books, including the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi and Sahih Muslim, record that Muhammad used to fondle, kiss and have sex while fasting (Boutros).
FROLICKING WITH MENSTRUATING WOMEN
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300:
Narrated Maimuna: Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.
Sunan Abu DawoodBook 1, Number 0272:
Narrated One of the Wives of the Prophet:
Ikrimah reported on the authority of one of the wives of the Prophet saying: When the Prophet wanted to do something (sexual activity) with (his) menstruating wife, he would put a garment on her private part.
Al Suyuti wrote Aisha relayed that Muhammad said to her “Come here,” to which she replied, “But I am menstruating, O prophet of God.” So he said, “Expose your thighs”; she did so and “he proceeded to lay his cheek and chest on her thighs.”
MENSTRUAL BLOOD IS HALAL
Ahkam al-Koran (v.3, p.444) A woman declared that she used to bring water from a well that had, not just menstruation blood, but dead dogs, and all manner of filth, and give Muhammad to drink.
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 1, Number 270:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
One night he entered (upon me) while I was menstruating. He said: Come near me. I said: I am menstruating. He said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs.
Abu Dawood, Book 1, Number 67:
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri:
I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah: Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes, and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.
QURAN RECITAL RESTING HEAD ON THIGHS
Sahih Bukhari hadith (v.6, p.2744) relayed by Aisha where she said that, while menstruating, the prophet used to lay his head on her (naked) thighs and recite the Koran.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 296:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Prophet used to lean on my thighs and recite Quran while I was in menses.
KINKY STUFF
Allah has allowed a Muslim man to derive pleasure from a woman in any way or form he wants.
2.223: Women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as ye will.
Bukhari ,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81:
Narrated ‘Uqba:
The Prophet said: “you are given the right to enjoy women’s private parts.”
OLDER RELATIVES
Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:
Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khaula bint Hakim (who was prophet’s aunt according to Musnad Ahmed) was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?”
ONE NIGHT STANDS
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 24:
A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to give you myself.”
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 54:
“A woman presented herself to the Prophet.”
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 58:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to you to present myself to you.”
CONTINUOUS ACTIONBukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
“Prophet was given the sexual strength of thirty men”.
Apostle could make love continuously to all his eleven wives in one night.
SLAVE GIRLS
Islam allows sex with your slave girls and any one who agrees to offer herself with money (muta) (ayas 4.3, 4.24,23.6,33.50,70.30).
The History of Tabari, vol. 8, p. 29-30:
From his own slave girls Prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.
CAPTURED WOMEN
The best “perk” of Islam is to kill an infidel and enjoy his wife and daughters.
Ibn Hisham, p. 766:“Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there”.
“Sirat e Rasulullah” by Ishaq, p. 464:
After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty… He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet had their men killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet.
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.
The History of Tabari, vol. 8, p. 29-30:
From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.
CONCLUSION
Islam is the most fun-loving religion as far as sexual activity is concerned. No wonder that it is the fastest growing religion among sex offenders in western prisons.
Hi Sayenji,
THE TRUTH OF ISLAM is better known from the following passage:-
Islam is totally and completely bogus – a sham and a fraud. The Koran is not the word/teachings of God but the word/teachings of Allah (the ANTI GOD) – the word/teachings of Muhammad. The Koran is a book of evil which is a very great sin and obscenity against God. As will be shown in this website, Allah was the fictional creation of Muhammad who was no prophet of any God. Muhammad invented Islam. Muhammad was Allah and Allah was Muhammad.
Muhammad – the prophet of peace, the apostle of god, ordered 60 massacres and personally participated in 27 of these acts of carnage. As the exemplary example and the perfection of humanity and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct Muhammad massacred, beheaded, tortured, terrorized, raped, and looted in the name of God.
In the Massacre of BanuQuraiza, Muhammad personally beheaded Jewish men and ordered the beheading of 600 to 900. To distinguish young Jewish boys from young Jewish men he ordered his SS jihadists – “the Companions” to pull down the pants of the terrified boys. Just the slightest traces of hair around the genital area and the young Jewish boy were taken away and beheaded. Muhammad took a Jewish woman as his sex slave and looted the property of the murdered Jews and sold their women and little girls that the jihadists did not want as sex slaves into slavery. Allah – the godfather and mafia chieftain of the Muhammad crime family rejoiced by creating as Eternal Laws of God – 5 teachings in the Koran celebrating the great slaughter of the BanuQuraiza Jews and enslavement of terrified women.
At the Massacre of Kaibyr, Muhammad brutally tortured a Jewish chieftain to reveal where he had hidden the golden treasure of Kaibyr. When the chieftain refused to give Muhammad the treasure he was taken away and beheaded. This chieftain was the husband of a most beautiful 17 year old Jewish woman – Safiyaah. After murdering her father, brothers, uncles, husband – Muhammad will attack and rape Safiyaah.
During the massacre of The Jewish Settlement of BaniMustaliq – Muhammad will capture and rape a twenty year old Jewish girl – Juwairiya. MUHAMMAD WAS THE FIRST NAZI SS MAN.
If Islam was a true religion of peace in which Muslims prayed 5 times a day, fasted for one month yearly, abstained from alcohol, went on a pilgrimage once in a lifetime then nobody would care. But this is not the reality of Islam.
Islam is not a religion but a political – military ideology with religious trappings masquerading as a religion. Only 10% of Islam has anything to do with religion, the other 90% is political.
The Koran is not the bible but the Islamic Mein Kampf.
In order to understand Islam, you must suspend all rationally and reason. Everything you have ever been taught about God, the equality of humanity, morality, golden rule, goodness and kindness must be abandoned for the irrational, immoral World of Allah – the ANTI GOD where deceit, assassination, massacre, extermination, genocide, murder, rape, slavery, terror, torture, brutality, hate, robbery, looting and pillaging are not criminal acts but holy blessed duties, halal (legal) acts as long as they are perpetrated on kafirs guarantying accession to a Paradise filled with voluminous breasted, lustrous eyed virgins that they can sexually molest for all eternity. Islam permits polygamy, pedophilla, wife beating, marriage with adopted son’s wives and unlimited sex with sex slaves. Allah is a pedophile permitting Muslim men to rape Muslim baby girls.
ALL MUSLIMS REGARD THE KORAN AS THE ETERNAL DIVINE WORD/TEACHINGS OF GOD THAT ARE UNCHANGABLE (FOREVER)AND CAN NEVER BE QUESTIONED. THESE HEINOUS ACTS ARE JUST SOME OF THE DIVINE ETERNAL EVIL LAWS IN THE KORAN THAT ARE NOT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY – ARE NOT SINS AGAINST GOD – ARE NOT CRIMES AGAINST THE LAWS OF GOD BUT ARE THE LAWS OF ALLAH (THE ANTI GOD). MUSLIMS WHO QUESTION JUST ONE WORD OF THE KORAN ARE NO LONGER MUSLIMS BUT APOSTATES OF ISLAM AND CAN BE KILLED.
Islam is anti God. Islam is a total and complete renunciation of God. While Muslims believe that there is only one God of the universe, their conception of God – a being they call Allah is not God but the ANTI GOD. This Allah (the ANTI GOD) worshipped by Muslims has divided all human beings into believers (Muslims) and non believers (kafirs i.e. YOU – Non Muslim.) Allah hates all kafirs with an intense passion. Kafirs are sub – human beings. They have zero humanity. Muslims must submit to Allah without question, non believers must submit to and be the slaves of Muslims, and Muslim women must submit to Muslim men.
Islam means submission. Islam demands the complete surrender of all human beings to Allah.
Islam is all about Muslim men. It is an evil ideology created by a man – Muhammad for his male followers granting them unlimited sex, riches, and political power.
Allah hates all Muslim women with a deep seated loathing. Muslim women are vile, dirty, stupid creatures. Muslim men can have multiple wives, unlimited sex slaves, can marry and rape Muslim baby girls, beat his wives, and murder them and his daughters if they dare impugn his honor. Whereas kafirs have zero humanity, Muslim women are only just slightly higher on the human evolutionary scale having evolved to being half a human. This is the divine order of the universe ordained by Allah. This vision of the inequality of Muslim women to Muslim men, and the Eternal sub – humanness and lack of humanity of kafirs is FOREVER and can never be changed in any way.
It is the prime directive of Islam to conquer the nations of the world for Allah by whatever means necessary. Allah seeks the extermination of all kafirs. By refusing to convert to Islam, kafirs have declared war against Islam, are a grave danger to Allah and must be destroyed. Islam is a declaration of war against kafirs. The Koran is not a holy book but a book of war. A book of genocide. Allah is a god of war. This war is permanent until all kafirs convert to Islam or agree to pay a devastating Jizya (submission tax) or are murdered.
For Muslims, it is a holy religious duty to murder kafirs. The Quran is written in the language of terrorism. It is filled with numerous verses urging the Muslims to terrorize the non Muslims, kill them, and take possession of their lands and properties. The important points to remember is that whatever Muhammad did to terrorize the kafirs was actually the actions of God. Among the many verses which exhort Islamist terrorism, the following verses stand out as naked aggression of Allah/Muhammad on the unbelievers: 2:63, 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 8:59, 9:5, 9:29, 9:55, 11:102, and 17:59 etc. These teachings are the Eternal Laws of Allah authorizating murder and extermination as a holy duty.
Again as a kafir, you are not a human being to a Muslim. You have absolutely no humanity. A Muslim has the full right granted to him by God, to murder you, take your wife and young daughter(s) rape and gang rape them (no matter what the age of your daughter) take them as sex slaves or sell them into slavery to be breed like cattle for future sex slaves and profit. Your male children will be beheaded if they are young men. If there is any doubt as to whether your young son is a young man or a young boy, Muslims will pull down their pants and examine their genitals for the slightest growth of hair. Just the slightest hair growth is enough for him to be beheaded. All your property will be seized and whatever the Muslim does not want to keep as his personal property, the remainder will be sold.
As a kafir you have absolutely NO RIGHT TO OWN ANYTHING. It is a sacrilege against Allah. All your property – your home, car, money, furniture, stocks and bonds, corporations, farms, is the property of the Muslims who have holy blood flowing through their veins. Your wife and children are the Muslim’s property to be tortured, brutalized, raped as the Muslim desires.
If a Muslim kills or is killed murdering, raping, pillaging non – Muslims then they are guaranteed accession by God to a Paradise of full breasted, lustrous eyed virgins who regenerate as virgins after each sex act that they can sexually molest with external erections for all eternity. THIS IS THE EVIL INSANITY THAT IS ISLAM.
Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb: the House of Islam and the House of War (By Robert Spencer)
Islam is based on an uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Unbeliever, or Infidel: dar al-Islam (The house of Islam) and dar al-harb (the House of War). There must be a state of war between the two — though not always a state of open warfare. For Muslims have a duty to spread Islam, and to constantly expand the boundaries of Dar al-Islam, the place where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule. This is a duty, not a suggestion.
All Muslims Must Make Jihad
Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come.
Those who can only find excuses, however, have been warned of extremely dreadful punishments and Allah has described them with the most unfortunate of names. He has reprimanded them for their cowardice and lack of spirit, and castigated them for their weakness and truancy. In this world, they will be surrounded by dishonour and in the next they will be surrounded by the fire from which they shall not escape though they may possess much wealth. The weaknesses of abstention and evasion of jihad are regarded by Allah as one of the major sins, and one of the seven sins that guarantee failure.
Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilisation of the entire Umma {the global Muslim community} into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil. The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Muhammad are overflowing with all these noble ideals and they summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.
The violent injunctions of the Quran and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar al-harb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.
But the lulls in the ongoing war that the House of Islam has declared against the House of War do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle but reflect a change in strategic factors. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare hudna, or truce, at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to make sense. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact even while “killing and being killed” (Sura 9:111) is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.
Sharia Law (By Robert Spencer)
Democracy and freedom are an affront to Allah. All constitutions are offense to Allah and must be destroyed and replaced with Sharia Law.
Large parts of the Koran are legal code and form Islamic constitutional law. Since Muslims believe that these laws come from Allah and Mohammed they are of a higher order truth than any man-made laws. Therefore, Sharia law must replace all other forms of government.
Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat. Under Sharia law, all kafirs are second class citizens. Women can be beaten and slavery is allowed. And just as in political Islam, Sharia law cannot be reformed.
It is the long term goal of Islam to replace the US Constitution with the Sharia, since it contradicts Islam. For that matter, democracy violates Sharia law. Democracy assumes equality of all peoples. Islam teaches that a Muslim is a better person than kafirs and that the kafirs should submit to Islam. But in voting, a Muslim’s vote is equal to a kafir’s vote. This violates Islamic law, since a Muslim and a kafir are never equal.
There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.
The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:
1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:
Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)
2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:
Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources, it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.
The most important teaching in Islam is that all Muslims MUST believe that the Koran is the Eternal divine word of God – the Eternal laws of God. All Muslims MUST believe that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. (Thats right – God Himself wrote the Koran and a copy is in heaven.) The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just “fundamentalists,” the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places forever; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim’s duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands without question.
Muslims can be killed (beheaded) for doing any of the following:
Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’
This means exactly what it says. ALL MUSLIMS MUST BELIEVE that the Koran is the ETERNAL word/teachings of God to be followed without question. If a Muslim challenges or questions the Koran, HE IS NO LONGER A MUSLIM BUT AN APOSTATE OF ISLAM and can be killed.
The Koran can never be changed not even one word. When you are reading teachings of the Koran, you are reading the word of God himself and you must OBEY. THERE IS NO CHOICE. There is no exercising free will, no employing logic, reason, rationality, morality. These teachings are for all time – FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.
This is the most important insanity that ALL Muslims believe – THAT MEANS ALL MUSLIMS. This belief in the KORNIC ETERNAL LAWS OF GOD is a disaster that has the potential to destroy humanity and civilization as we know it.
Again, all the Kornic teachings of extermination,murder, rape, slavery, looting, terror, sex with little girls, the non humanity of kafirs, sexual Paradise for Muslim killers etc are FOREVER.
They are Islam.
Islam is not a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked and perverted by a few bad apples of evil Islamo – Fascists, Islamic militants, Islamic Fundamentalists, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, political Islam, Islamists etc. There has been no hijacking. There has been no perversion. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet – Muhammad. ITS ALL ABOUT ISLAM STUPID INFIDEL
As already stated and what you must fully understand in order to protect your family and country against this very great evil living and flourishing among us is that the Koran defines the kafir as a subhuman who can be insulted, raped, robbed, killed, threatened or tortured. For Allah, these are holy, divine acts.
In Islam there is no Golden Rule – treat others as you wish to be treated. The ten commandments do not apply to kafirs.
The Golden Rule is centered on ethics, not god, and is universal to all cultures, except Islam. Indeed, the whole Islamic Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith) denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
If the Golden Rule was applied to Islam removing hate and violent teachings directed against the kafir – and the hate directed against Muslim women about 61% of the Koran would vanish, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith would also go away.
The Golden Rule even changes Hell. Islamic Hell is primarily political. Hell is mentioned 146 times in the Koran. Only 9 references are for moral failings—greed, lack of charity, love of worldly success. The other 137 references to Hell involve eternal torture for not agreeing that Mohammed is right. That is a political charge, not a morals failure. Thus 94% of the references to Hell are as a political prison for dissenters. The Golden Rule would empty Islam’s political prison.
The Golden Rule annihilates the ethics of cruelty. Golden Rule Islam would be a reformed Islam that the kafirs would not fear and dread. We are tired of living in fear of political Islam. We have suffered enough and would welcome an Islam that did not argue, demand, pressure, dhimmize, threaten, deceive and destroy kafirs and their civilization
No rational, normal person can believe in the evil that is Islam.
Muslim men who follow the evil teachings of the Koran are not going to Allah’s sexually depraved paradise of full breasted, lustrous eyed virgins but will lose their eternal souls and join Muhammad and his master Satan in the fires of Hell.
Taslimaji,
Thanks for this beautiful analysis of Islam, a cult propagated by a brilliant Psychopath who had a good grasp of the human males instincts. It’s time to reconvert the mesmerized enslaved people from the darkness and superstition.
Spreading the truth is one of the most pragmatic way to rescue the depraved part of humanity.
Islamic Law and Zimmis
Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.
The Jizya (tribute)
Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.
Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.
Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:
“…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”
Zimmis and Religious Practices
Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.
According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6)
Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7)
Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:
“In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”
Apostasy in Islam
Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,
“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).
Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”
In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”
A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.
Civic Laws
Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.
Marriage and Children
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.
If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.
Capital Punishment
The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.
Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.
The Witness of Zimmis
Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, “By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.
Personal Law
On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.
Political Rights and Duties
The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.
Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,
“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”
Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,
“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”
These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.
Business World
The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).
In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:
Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.
Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:
Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.
Freedom of Expression
Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:
“all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”
Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.
In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.
Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.
Muslims and Zimmis
Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.
I. The Forbidden:
A Muslim is not allowed to:
emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.
work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
make any endowment to churches or temples.
carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”
II. The Allowable
A Muslim is allowed to:
financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’ faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”
Conclusion
This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.
Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.
Hi Readers,
The following chapter may be relevant to read and draw suitable
conclusion.
Islamic Law vs Human Rights
The Sharia-compliant ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’ (CDHRI) charter, adopted by 45 Muslim nations 45 Muslim nations in August 1990 and officially supported by the Organization of Islamic Conference in June 2000, is being touted to replace the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by Islamic nations. The recently adopted UN resolution which denounces Islamophobia and criticisms of Islam paves the way forward for the CDHRI eventually to replace the UDHR at the UN.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) — a world union of Humanist organizations — has responded clarifying that the CDHRI is neither a replacement of, nor is complementary to, the UDHR. — MA Khan. Editor
IHEU has responded to claims that the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” is “not an alternative” to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but “complementary” to it. In a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council, IHEU opposed any resolution that seeks to limit the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We now have the official UN publication of the statement available for download — see below.
On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2007, the Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council claimed that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, adopted in 1990 by the 56 member states of the Orgainsation of the Islamic Conference “is not an alternative” to the Universal Declaration but “complementary”. Complementary? Yet the Cairo Declaration makes no mention of the Universal Declaration and clearly states that: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”, and “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”
On 24 February, in a strong response to this challenge to the universality of human rights, IHEU submitted the following written statement to the Human Rights Council:
The Cairo Declaration and the Universality of Human Rights (Pdf)
The International Human Rights Instruments.
1. On 10 December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1] (UDHR). The UDHR was adopted by the vast majority of Member States of the United Nations including all of the Islamic States with the exception of Saudi Arabia.
2. The International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights [2] (ICCPR) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [3] (ICESCR), which came into force in 1976, are binding on all signatory States. These include 46 of the 56 Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [4] (OIC).
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam
3. On 5 August 1990, the then 45 member states of the OIC adopted The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam [5]. In this document all rights are seen as derived from God. The preamble states that “no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments”.
4. At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Iran, supported by several other Islamic States, pressed for the acceptance of the Cairo Declaration as an alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This objective was partly achieved in 1997 when the Cairo Declaration was included by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as the last document in Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments: Volume II: Regional Instruments, (New York and Geneva, 1997, OHCHR, Geneva).
Complementary or Alternative?
5. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2007, the Ambassador of Pakistan, addressing the Human Rights Council on behalf of the OIC, spoke glowingly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, noting the contribution made to its creation and to the two international covenants by many Muslim countries. He then went on to claim that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: “is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries”.
6. This last statement, however, is difficult to understand. The Cairo Declaration cannot be in any sense considered complementary to the UDHR. It makes no reference to the UDHR, while Articles 24 and 25 of the Cairo Declaration explicitly state that: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”, and: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”
7. Many of the clauses in the Cairo Declaration limit the rights contained therein by reference to the Shari’ah: in particular, Articles 2, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22 and 23.
8. In this regard, we note the statement to the Human Rights Council by Ambassador Gunter Nooke of the Federal Republic of Germany, also speaking on 10 December 2007, in which he sincerely regretted “the tendency within some parts of the international community to roll back the principle of universality in order to make the enjoyment of fundamental rights dependent on factors such as tradition, culture, religion or the level of development”.
How the Shari’ah limits Human Rights
9. Under Shari’ah law, Muslim women and non-Muslims are not accorded equal treatment with Muslim men. The Shari’ah, therefore, fails to honour the right to equality guaranteed under the UDHR and the international covenants, and thus denies the full enjoyment of their human rights to those living in States which follow Shari’ah law.
10. By limiting rights to those permitted by the Shari’ah the Cairo Declaration, rather than complementing the UDHR and the international covenants, undermines many of the rights they are supposed to guarantee. (See references [6][7][8] for additional documentation on this issue.)
Limiting Religious Freedom
11. Religious freedom is limited under the Cairo Declaration. Article 10 states: “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.”
Since it is a generally accepted view in the Islamic world that only compulsion or ignorance would lead anyone to abandon Islam, conversion from Islam is thus effectively forbidden.
12. It is notable that under Shari’ah law in many countries apostasy and any actions or statements considered blasphemous are harshly punished, in some States by death. 13. At the 6th session of the Human Rights Council in December 2007, the European Union tabled a resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief. On December 14, the Pakistani delegate, again speaking for the OIC, said that differences remained in the wording of this resolution on, inter alia, respect for all religions and beliefs, and respect for national laws and religious norms about the right to change one’s religion. “Hence, we dissociate ourselves from operative paragraph 9 (a) because of its phrase ‘including the right to change one’s religion or belief'”. Yet this fundamental human right is clearly guaranteed under Article 18 of the UDHR and Article 18 of the ICCPR.
Limiting Freedom of Expression
14. Under the ICCPR, Article 19, freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions but only such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. 15. The Cairo Declaration goes further however in making this freedom subject to the Shari’ah. Under Article 22 of the Cairo Declaration a person may only express their opinion in a manner “as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah”, and freedom of expression may not be used to “weaken faith”.
16. On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions. Similar resolutions had been adopted since 1999 by the Commission for Human Rights and by the new Council. This was the first time however that such a resolution had been passed by the General Assembly. The resolution expresses once again “deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”. But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam. The resolution emphasizes that whilst everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this should be exercised with responsibility – and may therefore be subject to limitations, inter alia, “for respect for religions and beliefs”.
17. Many delegations, however, opposed the resolution. The Portuguese delegate, speaking for the European Union, explained clearly why:
“The European Union does not see the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ as a valid one in a human rights discourse. From a human rights perspective, members of religious or belief communities should not be viewed as parts of homogenous entities. International human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, rather than the religions as such.”
18. Notwithstanding these objections, those opposing the resolution found themselves on the losing side of a two-to-one majority in favour.
19. The implications of this resolution for freedom to criticise religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval for their actions, States may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion however they may choose to define “disrespect”.
20. The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the UN system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous.
Conclusions
21. The vast majority of the Member States of the OIC are signatories to the UDHR and the International Covenants, the ICCPR and ICESCR. By adopting the 1990 Cairo Declaration those States are in effect reneging on the obligations they freely entered into in signing the UDHR and the two covenants.
22. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration.
23. The statement by the Ambassador of Pakistan on 10 December 2007 can therefore be seen as misrepresenting the implications of the Cairo Declaration.
24. The OIC is attempting to limit religious freedom by promoting the Cairo Declaration and by rejecting wording in the Council resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief that would permit individuals to change their religion or belief.
25. The OIC is attempting to limit both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and to extend human rights to religions, per se, by its repeated promotion of the resolution “Combating Defamation of Religion” in the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.
26. We urge all states to remain vigilant and to actively resist any attempt to give equal status to the Cairo Declaration, and to oppose any resolution that seeks to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants.
We are living in 2013, people have seen many religions, preachers and followers.
In-order to have knowledge we started learning things, we started calling ourselves as educated.
There are SOME people they are educated but ILL- EDUCATED, argue on belief and not on FACTS
Every human being has right to live and let live others
Everyone has right to live happily
Everyone has right to reason good/bad, GOD has given that power to we humans i.e reasoning power
Every human being has right to think what is good or bad rather than being in a herd
Everyone has has their own rights i mean individual rights
LIVING IN ASSUMPTION IS NOT FINE FOR ANYONE, THIS IS PRACTICAL WORLD.
IF MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN ISLAM AND PROPHET, THEN WHY THEY ARE LIVING WITH OTHERS I.E. WITH CHRISTIANS, HINDUS, SIKHS, ETC. WHO ARE KAFIRS.
WHY THEY ARE DEALING WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS
WHY THEY ARE DOING BUSINESS WITH OTHER RELIGION FOLLOWERS, WHEN THEY BELIEVE OTHERS ARE NOT EVEN EQUAL TO BEGGARS?
WHY THEY ARE LIVING IN NON MUSLIM COUNTRIES, WHEN THEY CONSIDER OTHER ARE WORST THAN THEIR BODY FLUIEDS
WHY THEY ARE GOING ABROAD FOR EDUCATION? WHEN THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT WORLD, ONLY ONE GOD ETC. LET THEM LEARN ONLY QURAN, WHY THEY WANT TO KNOW OTHER FIELD OF EDUCATION?
THEY SPEAK ABOUT EQUALITY….! WHERE IS THE EQUALITY? WHY MAN CAN MARRY 4 WIVES AND LIVE TOGETHER AND WHY NOT FEMALES CANNOT ? FORGET ABOUT MARRYING 4 WIVES…. IS THERE ANY LOGIC FOR AN INDIVIDUAL’S VALUE? WHERE IS PURITY IN THOUGHTS? CLARITY IN THINKING? SELFISHNESS……!
PROPHET WANTED TO SPREAD ISLAM, HE TRIED IN SEVERAL WAYS, LATER ON HE STARTED THINKING PROMOTING LIKE A TRUE POLITICIAN MORE NUMBER OF MARRIAGES MORE NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS, SO HE STARTED MARRYING MORE NUMBER OF GIRLS WHO WERE OF HIS GRAND DAUGHTERS AGE.
HE STARTED PROVOKING KEEPING FEMALES HAS PUPPETS AND STARTED SHOWING THE DESIRES FOR MALES ” CAN ANY GOD TELLS THAT YOU ARE ONE AND YOU CAN MARRY ANY NUMBER OF WIVES?”
I AGREE WE DO NOT HAVE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE ANY RELIGION BUT HERE WE ARE EXCHANGING IDEAS ON PRACTICAL BASIS, TRUE FACTS.
THEY TELL OTHER RELIGION FOLLOWERS ARE SUPERSTITIONS…! ACTUALLY WHO ARE SUPERSTITIOUS? WHO IS BELIEVING BASELESS? WHICH RELIGION HAS NOT GIVEN RIGHT TO THINK RIGHTLY? WHICH RELIGION IS NOT GIVING RESPECT TO WOMEN? WHICH RELIGION HAS NOT GIVEN RIGHT TO FREEDOM? FREEDOM FOR WOMEN?
THINK THINK THINK AND ACT
SPREAD LOVE DO NOT SPREAD HATE-REDNESS, DO NOT SPREAD VIOLENCE.
LOVE AND PEACE IS ABOVE ALL RELIGION
LIVE AND LET LIVE PRINCIPLE IS HUMANITY
LOVE AND AFFECTION IS THE PRINCIPLES OF LIFE
Hello Satyenji,
My regards to you including Admn. Deeply influenced by your texts and it is high time when muslim females should get awakened and attempt to liberate themselves from vicious cricle of islamic evils.
Here I would like to like submitted for the information of our learned readers about so called prophet. God is almighty, can he be so cruel to make his messenger like Prophet, a murder and criminal.
Muhammad: A Prophet or a Pretender?
A true prophet should possess utmost humility of the biblical prophets, but Muhammad was an utmost arrogant, self-possessed and self-righteous man. Truly Muhammad was nothing but a pretender, seduced by his own rebellious heart…
There are three legs upon which Islam stands its grounds:
The Koran
Allah
Muhammad
Likewise, let’s take the example of a three-legged milking stool: If one leg is broken off, the whole stool would fall down. Some old farmers from Missouri, USA, will tell you that there is such a thing as ‘one-legged milking stool’! A clever farmer provides the other two legs with his own and the stool works, though there is a constant struggle to stay in balance.
Once dealt with the counterfeit Koran and the Pagan moon-god of Islam, Allah, we now find that Islam’s milking stool is actually down to one leg. We have seen that Islam is very vulnerable in its puerile and contradictory Koran. Allah also turns out to be a big fraud. Nevertheless, the Mullahs will prop up the Islamic stool by sheer force in the hope that Muhammad will survive our basic scrutiny.
With a feeble mind’s help, one shall now knock the last leg off of the stool of Islam and see how fragile the structure of Islam really is! I shall avoid stealth; rather, I shall simply quote Muhammad, and give you the known history of the man they call a Prophet. You may then decide if you wish to follow this alleged prophet/messenger of Allah.
Ahadith will be used heavily since they show the real Muhammad, who is well concealed to students of holy Koran alone. Again, I remind you that ahadith, or sayings of Muhammad, are 100% authoritative and genuine, since the Mullahs effective use them to control and guide the everyday lives of Muslims worldwide.
Also, to our Muslim readers, please bear with me. I know that many of these sayings in the ahadith have been hidden from you or have been concealed in taqiya, but it is urgent that you see just what kind of a prophet you are following. If you are a devout Muslim, this will be the hardest part for you to hear, but it can also be the way finally to truth so as to liberate yourself from the ‘deceptions of Islam’. May the Truth give you light to know it.
Muhammad’s Claims for himself as a ‘Prophet’ of God!
All prophets must establish who they are and where they came from. If they are prophets, they must be very convincing to get attention of potential followers. A prophet, who calls men to himself alone, is called a ‘guru’. A prophet, who calls men to a supreme being, is called a ‘true prophet’, or a “prophet of god” etc.
Islam’s first pillar is to declare the true faith of Islam. That is done by repeating a single statement, which is: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.”
Is Muhammad a true prophet of God, as he claimed? We shall soon see.
H. G. Wells says that Muhammad claimed that the prophets before him, particularly Abraham and Jesus, were divine teachers of Allah, but he, Muhammad, was the crowning and final prophet, who completed the line of prophetic succession. The reason Muhammad failed to include Buddha, Krishna, and the Vedas in his list of Allah’s prophets is because he was isolated from the rest of the world by his Arab geography.
We note that all modern-day prophets made similar and repeated claims of being the last and the best. Montinus (circa 250 AD) claimed to be a Christian prophet; he had quite a following until Christ failed to come back by his man-made schedules. Joseph Smith, who encouraged his men to marry an old maid’s sanitarium, claimed to be the last and the best of the prophets. Charles Taz Russell, a lazy loser of a salesman, founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and claimed the same, as did Rajneesh, Jim Jones, Father Divine, and Willy Frampton. (Willy prophesied in the 1960s on Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles something about 35-foot grasshoppers coming to destroy the earth if we didn’t repent. He even had photos of the grasshoppers in a shoe box, which he refused to open?)
So, here is what Muhammad said about ‘himself’ as we compare him with the prophets and writers of the Bible. The copy of the ahadith I am using is, Al Hadis by Al Haji Maulana Fazlul Karim, The Book House, Lahore, Pakistan, in five volumes. Every ahadith has a reporter, who heard Muhammad say the ahadith. Then at the end of each ahadith there are renowned Muslim scholars, who attest that it was said by Muhammad. This is actually a better authority than that of the Koran, in which only Muhammad speaks, purported as Allah’s words.
Muhammad Exalts Himself!
Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 316:
Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “I have been sent in the best of the generations of the children of Adam, one generation after another generation, until I am born in the generation in which I am born.” (Attested by Bukhari)
This means that ‘the generations of the world have been constantly improving, and Muhammad is the pinnacle of all men, humbly no doubt’. Again, listen to him defy entropy.
Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 323:
Abbas reported that he came to the Holy Prophet while he was in such a condition as he heard something (about his linage from unbelievers). The Holy Prophet got up to the pulpit and asked, “Who am I?” They replied, “You are the messenger of Allah.” Muhammad said, “I am Muhammad, son of Abdullah, son of Abdul Muttaleb. Allah created creations and made me the best of them. Then he divided them into two groups and made me the best of the two. Then he divided them into tribes and made me the best of the tribes. Then he made them into families and made me the best of the families. I am the best of them as a member and the best of them as a family.” (Attested by Tirmizi)
Al Hadis, Vol 4, p. 328:
Jaber reported that the Holy Prophet said, “Allah sent me to complete the excellent virtues and to perfect the good actions”. (Attested Sharhi-Sunnat)
We are reminded at once of Muhammad’s “virtue” as he consummated his battlefield “marriage” to a Jewish captive, Safiyah, in a sand dune with the gore and filth of battle all over him. Virtuous actions no doubt, though it is today called ‘rape-virtuous’, even though he broke his own ahadith Sharia’h Law to wait until after her next monthly!
Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 326:
Obai-b-Ka’ab reported from the Holy Prophet who said: “When here will come the resurrection Day, I shall be the leader of the Prophets and their spokesman and one who will intercede for them without boast.” (Attested by Tirmizi)
Muhammad is claiming by inference that he will intercede for Jesus Christ! He was good at slapping Christ’s face. In another ahadith of the same passage, according to Abu Hurairah, Anas, and Abdullah-b-Salam, Muhammad claimed he would be at the right hand of Allah, and that Jesus would return to earth, live forty years, then be buried with him. These are direct contradictions of Jesus Christ, which Muhammad used to degrade Christ and exalt himself to guru-istic heights! Muhammad’s claim, that ‘he was the prophet of the God of the Bible and also a fellow prophet with Jesus, is really preposterous.
Biblical Prophets Exalt God or Christ and Not Themselves!
Jesus speaking of the prophet John the Baptist said in the Bible (Matthew 11:11): “verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”.
Jesus is saying that any man can be great in God’s eyes. The self-exaltation of Muhammad is totally out of character with Prophets of the Bible.
Earlier John the prophet said about himself in the Bible (Matthew 3:11): “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire”.
Like John the Baptist, a true prophet of God thinks of himself with only humility while he exalts The Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is what the Apostle to the Jews and Arabs, Paul, thought of himself in the Bible (I Timothy 1:15): “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief”.
Now, how is it that he spoke that way about himself, yet God let him write much of the New Testament of the Bible? Could it be that humility is required in the prophets of the God of the Bible? Answer: YES!
Listen to Isaiah speak of himself. This is the prophet that wrote the longest book of prophecy in the Bible (Isaiah 6:5): “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts”.
It is obvious that Muhammad heard from Allah, a pagan god from Babylon, for ‘if’ he had heard from Jehovah, he would have found no room to boast of himself.
Prophet Amos, whose book is in the Bible, thought he wasn’t even qualified to be a prophet. The Bible, Amos 7:14: “Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdsman, and a gatherer of sycamores fruit (figs)”.
Thus, God could use him because he was at first humble and self-effacing.
Prophet Moses, whom Muhammad blessed, couldn’t even speak properly. Bible, Exodus 4:10: “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue”.
But, no man has been more loved and his autographs imprinted in the world’s legal structure, than those of Moses. Humility preceded his ministry.
Regarding Muhammad’s attempts to humanize Christ’s deity, here is where Jesus Christ is NOW! Bible, Acts 2:33-35: “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this… For David… saith himself, The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Jesus Christ), Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool”.
Rather than Muhammad interceding for Jesus, Muhammad should have cried out to Jesus Christ to intercede for him. Since he didn’t, Muhammad is now burning in Hell! The Apostle Paul said in the Bible (I Timothy 2:5): “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”; and in II Timothy 4:1, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom”.
Muhammad is in trouble. He will soon meet the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will put His foot on Muhammad’s neck and send him back to Hell. Muhammad had a very exalted view of himself, while the biblical prophets did not. Here is what Paul, the Bible writer, admonished men and prophets to think about themselves:
Bible, Romans 12:3: “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith”.
Bible, Galatians 6:3-4: “For if a man thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another”.
Bible, I Corinthians 14:37: “If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Now, we see that a truly godly man does not even notice himself. In the I Corinthians text, we see that those, who are “spiritual”, agree with the teachings of Apostle Paul. This is why the Mullahs, especially Ahmed Deedat, hate Paul. It was Apostle Paul, who also said (Bible, II Timothy 3:13): “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived”.
Muhammad and Islam have no problem with evolution. They believe Muhammad was the pinnacle of all human evolution, and things will get better and better as Islam takes over the world. The coming section on Muhammad’s libido should be sufficient to show that he wasn’t quite as lofty as he imagined. As to Islam, the wars between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims show how they cannot tame the human instinct, and the wars between Iraq and Iran proved Apostle Paul to be correct rather than Muhammad. Jesus said (Matthew 23:12): “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted”.
Such attitude of utmost humility may only be fitting for a true “Prophet of God”.
But it is very clear that Muhammad was an utmost arrogant, self-possessed and self-righteous man. Truly Muhammad was a pretender, seduced by his own rebellious heart, and has turned the world’s 1.4b Muslims victim of the same.
Thanking readers for having spared their time to read the text.
Regards.
Nargis
Nargis ji,
thanks for the appreciatin and presenting another perspective of looking at the dangerously crafted cult known as Islam, revealed by a sex maniac and saddist. In fact, Islam is hanging on a thin thread of Muhammad’s lies that incorporates other two legs i.e. Allah and Quraan. It is Muhammad who revealed Quraan and described Allah. If Muhammad is discarded, all his creations automatically lose their relevance.
So, we just need to spread the true biography of Muhammad especially his marital activities and attitudes towards the women folk.
SatyenJi,
You are certainly a great writer, you should write a book on this subject. We all certainly appreciate your contributions here to educate all.
“The reason is there are 73 sects in Islamand all of them interprete it differently. Nay, they all claim that only their sect is the true representative of Islam and all others are mistaken i.e a candidate of hell fire!”
But all these sects say the same thing with regard to Jihad and Non-Muslims 😀
I understand what Satyen is trying to say and what he believes. All the best to him.
Salma ji and veena ji,
Thanks for your blessings. Propagate the message all around you.
Now worries about others who are here just to protect their interests. Best thing is to ignore them as they are saying what we have been hearing for the last 1400 years!
GUYS LIKE TO KNOW “Roots of Islam” FROM RESEARCHERS?
FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING LINKS 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HWQqj7GTDrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZPM-5zJ6ZCI
……..Continued from the above write up
Having established himself at the driver’s seat of his cult, Muhammad devised the strategem to propagate it. He utilised the two most powerful motivating agents of majority of males – wealth and sex. It was necessary to motivate the males in warfare and a share of wealth and women of the war spoils could attract the males for Jihad i.e. propagating the Muhammad’s empire. He shelved away all the morality whatsoever to achieve his goals. For example his followers were allowed to capture the women during/after the wars forcefully marrying them and even raping the kafir women slaves.The best tool he utilized was his proclaimation of revelation as a result of his direct communion with Allah. This made his orders unquestionable and anyone questioning his prophet-hood was not only beheaded but tortured mercilessly before the death. That’s why Allah was considered merciful even when killing the kafirs as the death was more acceptable than continuing with the unbearable torture! This strategy worked exceedingly fine as the male followers had nothing to lose in following Muhammad as they got all the amenities at the cost of Kafirs and the women’s repression.They collected the spoils of war in the form of wealth and women in unrestrained sexual pleasure. In return they had only to convert the kafirs and spread the message that Muhammad is their prophet. Those who didn’t accepted the cult, lost their lives and the women. Consequently, this forced conversion of Kafirs and the forced impregnating the women, multiplied their number with leaps and bounds.
This strategy worked for the propagation of the Islamic cult in two ways. If the Kafirs converted, it added to the number of Muslims. Otherwise, the Kafir women were looted and married/enslaved to the Muslims. the women were forced to beget as many children as possible. All the women irrespective of their religion were turned into a pleasure dolls and the factory, producing Muslim soldiers. These future Muslim soldiers produced by the women victims of Muhammad, brought in more women. Thus, this ideology gave rise to a vicious cycle. further, the victim Muslims got used to this life style and helplessly accepted to fulfill the two purposes (being pleasure dolls and giving birth to perpetrators of the humanity) of the Muslims. This dual role of the Muslim women has continued over the centuries uninterrupted since the time of Muhammad. In fact the Muslim women has played a crucial logistical role of supplying the soldiers for the spread of Islam and so it was important to ensure their support. All the attrocities on the women are aimed to safeguard the interests of Islam. The fairy tales of miracles of Muhammad, paradise and hell fire were concocted to retain the women. Even the most unpleasant and inhuman societal environments were created to make the women servile so that they cannot backtrack from their role of logistical support to the Islam’s propagation.
The Muslim women have endured all the attrocities in return to nothing but darkness, here and hereafter. In this present life, they are the sex dolls for their husbands and beget children one after another. Hereafter, nothing is there for them in the paradise as well. Though their husbands will be sporting with 72 virgin women and the boys, the Muslim women will remain lonely with no such privileges, just as a mute spectators of all these! All the bodily pleasures of the paradise won’t give any solace to them in their solitary life in paradise.
Now, the question is why this situation of the Muslim women continued for centuries? The answer is simple. The victim i.e. the Muslim women started working for the predators over the period. It is understandable that they had to do it helplessly having no other option than to die or undergo severe torturous life. Also, a lack of communication between different parts of globe make it virtually impossible to know the nature of Islam and its effects. The followers of Muhammad took advantage of it and spread the concocted stories of Muhammad’s miracles along with their cunning strategies. thus Islam spread far and wide within a century.
Several centuries have passed and now it has taken a turn from its usual course. After witnessing so much in favour of Muhammad and against the women, time has come to cross roads with opportunities for those who want to free themselves and breath in fresh breez after a long hiatus. With arrival of scientific revolution in the field of communication, it’s possible to spread the truth of Islam. Unfortunately, the Muslim women are still working for the predators. Ironically, they are converting a neutral person into a predator by meticulously planning for his conversion! When they fall in love with the so called Kafirs they try to drag them to Islam instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to rescue themselves and help others in freeing from the earthly hell fire. Once in Islamic fold, males taste the advantages of being a Muslim male and start behaving Muslim way. So, still most of the victims are still working for the predators. How can this end the era of inhumanity started by Muhammad?
However, there is the silver lining even in this pessimistic atmosphere. There is the light at the end of the tunnel and this light is none other than the awakening of the Muslim women. first they must realize that only they can rescue themselves. Especially the educated and enlightened women have a bigger role to play in this operation ‘Rescue Muslim Women’. First they must realize that that only they can rescue themselves by assisting each other and taking help from other like minded people who don’t want to live under the enslaving yoke of Muhammad. Understand it fully well that root cause of your present fate is non other than Muhammad and his words in the form of Quraan/Hadith followed religiously by his entourage for their vested interests. To win the war against your enemy, know your enemy fully well by reading the biography of Muhammad and his lifestyle especially his marital affairs, with an open and analytical mind. Once you have understood him fully well, move forward to act. Without any forward action, you will remain where you have been for the centuries.
You must devise a way how to come into action. Some of the steps you can start with is as given below:
1. Befriend as many educated and free thinking Muslim women as possible through various means – in schools, work places, parties, internet, networking etc.
2. Make it clear that root cause of women’t problem is Muhammad and there is no other way than to discard him fully in order to improve your situation and lead a respectful life with equality. Always make a clear cut distinction between Allah and Muhammad. Allah is supreme and compassionate so He cannot give you hell fire and will give you paradise here and hereafter. On the other hand, Muhammad was not a prophet but a lunatic and superstitious at his best and open to questioning regarding his behaviours. Get the support of all the women you know – in your family, relatives, friends, women’s organisations.
3. Form women’s organisations in every town or village. Start with even three or four women and campaign to multiply the numbers. fix a target to contact at leas one new member every week/month and the number will swell sooner than later. Whenever any issue relating to you comes up, take help of this organisation. Try to associate some influencial like minded people with your group.
4. Propagate analytical views on Islam and the women to as many as possible.
5. Marry to only those Muslim men who don’t consider Muhammad as prophet or have regard for him. It’s better to marry in court even with a Muslim as it will safeguard your future interests.
6. Shun all the inhuman and unscientific practices in Islam such as, circumcision, Burqa/Naqab, marrying cousin etc. jnever marry somebody who is looking for a proof of virginity and is not willing to give proof of his own virginity.
7. Celebrities should help in this cause at the forefront with caution.
The above are just the examples and are not exhaustive. Go for brainstorming sessions in your organisations/groups and come up with novel ideas to achieve your rightful goals.
Allah bless you all.
When Muslim men die and pass to Islamic Paradise (Heaven), they expect to enter a utopian dimension where wine, milk and honey flows, fruit-trees flourish and rivers gush forth with the purist water.
Here, they plan to be greeted by 72 young virgins of “perpetual freshness” (houris) who will lead them into palaces loaded with luxurious thrones surrounded by gold, silver and jewel plated furnishings.- a holy place where believers reclined on jeweled couches surrounded by the finest silks can experience unlimited erotic sexual pleasures.
Islamic scholar Yusuf Ali described the virgins as “the companionship of Beauty and Grace – one of the highest pleasures of life. In the higher life it takes a higher form…The pronoun in Arabic is in the feminine gender. It is made clear that these maidens for heavenly society will be of special creation,-of virginal purity, grace, and beauty, inspiring and inspired by love, with the question of time and age eliminated.”
The virgins, according to another Islamic commentator are “creations of God, intelligent yet soulless and created to serve the believer who goes to Paradise. They are created for the purpose of serving the believer, and as such, they don’t exactly have free will. They are described as pure, beautiful, dark eyed, lustrous, virgin, and more perfect than any human on earth. Imagine the woman of your dreams.”
Quranic commentator Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ) explained more graphically that Muslim men in Paradise experience non-ending arousals and that ever time they have sex with one of the angelic maidens, they find her body reconstituted as “virgin.”
“The sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint,” Al-Suyuti explained. ” Each chosen one [Muslim] will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all (will be appetizing).”
Islam’s Prophet Muhammad was heard saying about Islamic Heaven: ‘The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen].”
To assure Muslim men that they will be able to fully enjoy their heavenly rewards, Muhammad said, “A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men.”
Islamic law and moral guidance for all of Islam is mostly based on the life of Muhammad and his Quranic revelations, his life as a conquering warrior and his sayings, acts, approvals or disapprovals. He was born 570 years after the death of Jesus Christ.
Muslims say that the Archangel Gabriel manifested himself to Muhammad where he was secluded in a cave to pray.
Gabriel, according to Islamic teachings, instructed the terrified Muhammad that he had been chosen as a messenger of God to “recite, repeat and proclaim” revelations from God. For nearly 23 years, Muhammad supposedly received “Divine” instructions
As soon as Muhammad would receive a divine revelation and repeat it back to his followers, it became Islamic tradition or law. Muhammad recited a revelation declaring that Christ was not the Son of God another instructing Muslims that it was their heavenly duty to fight and kill Christians and Jews where ever they could be found.
For centuries Muslim men have followed Muhammad’s specific “revelation” instructions on how and when to fight, loot, pillage, plunder, rape, torture and murder in order to further the interests of Islam and their own personal wealth in the form of “plunder.”
Muslim women were and still are restricted to the role of wife, who is a source of comfort for her husband and mother for his children. This because Muhammad was heard to say “men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means” and “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display of yourselves like that of the former times of ignorance. (Surah Ahzab:33)
When a Moslem female turns 7 years old, she is segregated from all males in and out of her extended family. From then on, no males including her father, grandfather, uncles, brothers, cousins are allowed to be present at her birthday parties or at any ceremony celebrating her accomplishments.
At 9 years old, she must begin adhering to Islamic laws because she is considered an adult and eligible for marriage. Muhammad contracted for his wife Aisha, when she was 7 (he was 51) and consummated the marriage when she was 9.
Aisha, was the second of 11 wives and an unknown number of concubines and female slaves who Muhammad collected during his life, which span from 570 AD until 632 AD.
When a Muslim woman steps from her house into the public, her body must be covered from head to toe with no skin showing (hijab).
This law, according to Islamic tradition, is a result of Muhammad becoming upset one day when he noticed several of his wives flirting with men who were visiting him. Muhammad ordered the women to retire behind a dividing curtain when speaking to the men. It was that order by Muhammad which caused the Islamic obligation of hijab. The term comes from the Arabic word “hijaba,” which means to hide from view.
If a Muslim women gets sick, she is required to be treated by female doctors. If none are available, she must be examined through some sort of divider or go without treatment.
Like Muslim men, Muslim women must kneel facing Mecca and pray five times a day and fast one month out of a year. Women are required to pray at home in many Islamic countries because females are not allowed in mosques. Among the countries which allow women in mosques, the women are banished to basement rooms or other segregated spaces.
Muslim leaders explain that for Islamic prayers to be “valid” and “accepted by Allah,” the prayer must be offered with a complete presence of the heart, harmony of the inner self and uninterrupted concentration.
They say women performing the Muslim prayer movements of standing upright, sitting, bending and prostrating is inappropriate because it distracts men from their prayers. For justification, Muslim leaders point to the Islamic tradition which states ” . . . and whoever prays behind a woman imam should repeat his prayers even if the time slot for that specific prayer has passed.”
Muhammad was once heard saying: “from among my followers there will be some who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, to be lawful. Allah will destroy them during the night and will let mountains fall on them. He will transform the rest into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Doom” (Hadith, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494v).
As a result, Muslim women are ordered not to wear silk (fashionable cloths) or bright colors, play musical instruments, dance, wear make-up, date, have sex outside of marriage, play sports, watch men play (even on television), etc. If they get caught doing so, depending on the Islamic country, they will be arrested and beaten.
Women living under Islamic laws are not allowed to work, travel, go to college, join organizations, or visit friends and relatives without the permission of their father or husband.
They can be legally jailed or executed for violations of Islamic laws, depending on the seriousness the infraction.
Quranic verse 24:31 warns Muslim women not to make eye contact or allow any part of their skin or jewelry to be seen by strangers, “and tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect themselves from illegal sexual acts, and not show off their adornment [to all men] and boys].” As a result of this verse, if an adult girl (9 years and older) is raped by an adult man, she will be considered at fault because she was careless and provoked the attack. Her parents will be expected to severely punish or kill her for dishonoring her family.
If a woman is taken political prisoner, and condemned to death, Islamic law prevents her from being executed as long as she is a virgin because Muslim leaders believe virgins go to heaven. But, according to those same leaders, women involved in politics are “ungodly creatures” who do not deserve to go to heaven. To insure that an “ungodly virgin” does not enter heaven, the woman’s captors will treat her as a concubine making it legal for her to be systematically raped.
Islamic justification for raping woman prisoners can be found because Muhammad gave permission for Muslim warriors to rape enemy prisoners “except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24. The key words for the Islamic legal code are “whom your hands possess” and “thus Allah has ordained for you.”
Muslim Quranic (bible) verse 4:34 instructs Muslim men to “admonish” and “beat” their wives if they become “rebellious” and that “men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights.”
In an Islamic court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to override the testimony of one man. Justification for this legal tradition is found in Quran 2:282.
Muslim women are not allowed equal right to their inheritance (Quran 4:11-12) because they are only worth half of a man’s share. In most Islamic countries, women are not allowed to vote and are certainly not allowed to be elected to public office.
According to Islam, most women are inherently evil and their ultimate destiny is Hell fire. Muhammad explained about one of his visions, “. . . I stood at the gate of the Fire [Hell] and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women.”
When a women asked Muhammad why there were more women in Hell than men, 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.”
When the woman asked what was deficient in a woman’s intelligence and religion, Muhammad answered, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses? This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Because Muhammad said, “marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial,” polygamy is legal in Islam. A man may marry “four Permanent” and as many “Provisional” or temporary wives as he desires.
Because Muhammad said, “your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish,” Islam assumes not only that women are worth less than men, but that they are property who must unquestionable meet all her husband’s sexual desires. If she refuses, he has the legal right under Islamic law to deny her food, shelter, and all of life’s necessities.
A Muslim woman does not have the right to choose who she wants to marry. She is not permitted to divorce her husband unless she can prove he is impotent or that he does not have sex with her “at least one night in every forty nights” and if he has not provided her with a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the woman would need another witness, because Muhammad said a women’s testimony counts only “half of a man’s.”
If a Muslim women protests any of her treatment, she is reminded that “her husband can divorce her simply by repeating “I divorce you” three times and that her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her” if she continues to rebel.
Since Muhammad’s time, Muslim women have been made to fear the Hell Fire consequences of disobeying husbands and fathers, but what can the loyal and obedient women expect to find for herself in paradise?
Because Paradise, is described in largely male terms, the exact nature of an equivalent reward for women remains unclear. Married women, who pass the purity test will be reunited with their husbands and children. A woman who married more than once would have to choose which husband she would prefer to join her in the after-life. She, however, remains reserved for her husbands, if one chooses to keep her.
Men who married more than once will remain free to keep all their wives while having the privilege of being attended to by 72 pure, beautiful, dark eyed, lustrous angelic maidens, whose bodies continuously reclaims as “virgins.”
Muslim scholars say that Muslim women in Paradise are also rebuilt young and beautiful with perpetual virginity, but that there is no Quranic promise of virgins for women.
Although Muhammad was heard promising that “round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls,” Muslim scholars are emphatic that the pretty virgin boys in Paradise are not there for the women.
“I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity . . . Islam believes and promotes only one relationship between male and female and that is the relation of lust . . . I have no explanation on why God denied me everything and made men in charge of me, if there is a God. I don’t believe there ever was one.”– Dr. Parvin Darabi, a rehabilitated Muslim woman, author and activist.
Dear Satyen,
Really thankful to you for the above blog exclusively to englighten muslim girls. Aamir, Zunaid, Zahid are doing their level best to distort the facts and realities and sabotage the basic purpose of this site.
My sincere thanks to Admn.also.
God bless you both.
Veenaji,
Thanks for your blessings. Propagatethe the message all around you.
In Defense of the Muslim Sisterhood
Save on Delicious digg
Yvonne Ridley
Article ID: 1304 | 6502 Reads
Google Ads
In defense of the Muslim sisterhood
I have a bee in my bonnet – or hijab to be more precise. On an almost daily basis there are horrific stories pouring out of Tunisia about how the state police are ripping off the hijabs of women living there.
Some of these women, who are merely fulfilling their religious obligation to wear a hijab, have been assaulted, sexually abused and even locked up in prison by the authorities. Unbelievable when you consider western tourists are topless sunbathing on the coastal resorts, soaking up the Tunisian sun.
So it is okay to get your kit off if you are a western tourist who pays handsomely for sun, sand, sex and sangria …but try wearing a hijab and see what happens in this so-called liberal, Muslim country.
At the moment I am in Tehran where Iranian police are occasionally stopping women in the streets to remind them of their religious obligations by wearing a full hijab. There’s been an outcry in the Western media about how the Iranian authorities are fining women who fail to wear their hijabs correctly in public.
I call these women the half-jabis – you know the ones, they balance their designer scarfs precariously on the back of their heads and spend the rest of the day adjusting and picking their scarfs from the nape of their necks. It might have endeared Princess Diana to half the Muslim world when she ‘covered’ in Muslim countries, but most women who try and emulate the Di style just look plain stupid.
But what a pity those same journalists don’t travel to Tunisia and write about a real story like the human rights abuses against women in down town Tunis instead of focusing on Tehran. Why do journalists choose to ignore the Amnesty International report which outlines in clinical detail how the Tunisian authorities have increased their “harassment of women who wear the hijab”?
Is it because the Tunisian government is a craven devotee of the Bush Administration whereas Iran was identified as the now infamous Axis of Evil? Surely the media is not that fickle? (Rhetorical question merely for the benefit of the mentally challenged).
The actions of the Tunisian regime make Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government look like a group of Tupperware party planners. For instance, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Interior and the Secretary-General of Tunisia’s ruling political party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally, have stated they are so concerned about rise in the use of the hijab by women and girls and beards and the qamis (knee-level shirts) by men, that they have called for a strict implementation of decree 108 of 1985 of the Ministry of Education banning the hijab at educational institutions and when working in government.
Police have ordered women to remove the head scarfs before being allowed into schools, universities or work places and others have been made to remove them in the street.
According to Amnesty’s report, some women were arrested and taken to police stations where they were forced to sign written commitment to stop wearing the hijab. Amnesty International states quite clearly it believes that individuals have the right to choose whether or not to wear a headscarf or other religious covering, consistent with their right to freedom of expression.
They have called on the Tunisian government to “respect the country’s obligations under both national law and international human rights law and standards, and to end the severe restrictions which continue to be used to prevent exercise of fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly”. They have even kindly asked President Ben Ali’s government to “end the harassment and attempted intimidation of human rights defenders”.
I would like to be more forthright with Mr Ben Ali and remind him of his Islamic obligations as a Muslim. I doubt if Zine Alabidin Ben Ali would take much notice. The man is clearly an arrogant fool and somewhere in Tunisia there is a village which is missing its idiot (Hamman-Sousse in the Sahel, actually).
This is the man who once said the hijab was something foreign and not part of Tunisian culture. Hmm, he obviously has not seen pictures taken before he came to power, clearly show Tunisian women going about their business fully covered. He has a history of despising the French colonialists who occupied his country, but at least under the French, the Tunisian people had more freedom than they do now.
And since I have no family, friends or connections in Tunisia I write this without fear or favour. Also, there is no rank in Islam so I care nothing for his title nor do I have any respect for him as a man. I would certainly never doff my cap to this particular President of Tunisia and would happily spit in his face if he told me to remove my hijab.
Perhaps those Muslim women in Tehran might like to consider the plight of their sisters in Tunisia before trying to balance their hijabs on the backs of their heads. And I would ask them to read the harrowing report below before bellyaching to more journalists about their rights to parade around like Diana-look-a-likes.
It was written by an imam from Tunisia who had it smuggled out and given to me because he wants the world to know exactly what is happening to the women in his country. Here is a snippet: “The police will randomly make their way into markets and rip the hijabs from women’s heads as well as take away any fabrics being sold to make hijabs.
“They will also go into factories where women are working and rip the hijabs off women’s heads. This is the least of what they have done.
“I will give you just one example of what these dogs with Arab faces but the hearts of devils, have done to our sisters. They have, at one time ordered a public bus to halt in the middle of the road while two plain clothes detectives went inside. The buses are similar to the ones in the west except they will usually have three times more people inside it.
“They grabbed one women wearing hijab and took her outside of the bus. This was a sister who they had warned before. They brought her into the side of the street and began slapping her across her face and cursing at her with the worst language you could think of.
“They took her hijab off and the main policeman said, “When are you going to stop wearing this ****. She said she would never stop and she was crying. The men took her around the corner by a public bathroom.
“They ripped her clothes off. They grabbed a soda bottle, these bottles are made of glass, and they raped her with it. They were laughing and they were many people around but no one did anything. When they were done they made her wear a short skirt and a sleeveless shirt and made her walk home to her husband like this. I swear by Allah that this is true”.
The time is fast approaching when sisters across the world have to unite and come together in defence of the hijab and in defence of the Muslim sisterhood. My appeal goes out to feminists of all faiths and no faith but please don’t think Muslim women are weak because the reality is that Islamic feminism can be just as radical as western feminism.
Our parameters and values are slightly different as Muslims but that does not make us any better or lesser human beings than western feminists. There is certainly no room for sectarianism in the Muslim sisterhood and we have no time for petty squabbles, divisions, cultural or tribal affiliations.
The bottom line is that we need to show solidarity with our sisters in Tunisia … it is a very small country which makes it easy for the army to control the people and brutally squash any signs of resistance.
An Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her significant and pioneering efforts for democracy and human rights,especially the rights of women and children. She is the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to
receive the prize.As a researcher and activist, she is known for promoting peaceful and democratic solutions to serious problems in society. She takes an active part in the public debate and is well
known and admired by the general public in her country for the legal defense of victims of the conservative faction’s attack on freedom of speech and political freedom.
Along with Iranian-American co-author Azadeh Moaveni, Ebadi is the author of the memoirs Iran Awakening: One Woman’s Journey to Reclaim Her Life and Country and Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope. Her latest, The Golden Cage: Three Brothers, Three Choices, One Destiny, was published in 2011. Ebadi has also written a number of academic books and articles focused on human rights, including The Rights of the Child: A Study of Legal Aspects of Children’s Rights in Iran,
published with support from UNICEF, and History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran. An
activist for the rights of refugees, women, and children, she is the founder and leader of the
Association for Support of Children’s Rights in Iran.
Ebadi argues for a new interpretation of Islamic law that is in harmony with vital human rights such as democracy, equality before the law, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. She also advocates for the rights of the Bahá’i religious community, which has long struggled
with a variety of problems and prejudices in Iran. As a lawyer, Ebadi has been involved in a number of controversial political cases. She
was the attorney of the families of the writers and intellectuals who were victims of the serial murders in 1999 and 2000. She has successfully worked to reveal the principals behind the attack
on the students at Tehran University in 1999. As a consequence of her activism, Ebadi has been imprisoned on numerous occasions.
Ebadi campaigns for peaceful solutions to social problems and promotes new thinking on Islamic terms. She has displayed great personal courage as a lawyer defending individuals and groups who have fallen victim to a powerful political and legal system that is legitimized 313 Washington Street, Suite 225 | Newton, MA 02458 | Phone: 617.614.1600 | Fax: 617.965.6610 | apbspeakers.com through an inhumane interpretation of Islam. Ebadi has shown her willingness and ability to
cooperate with representatives of both secular and religious views.
Shirin Ebadi earned a law degree from the University of Tehran. In the years between 1975 and 1979, she served as president of the city court of Tehran—one of the first female judges in Iran. After the revolution in 1979, she was forced to resign.
An Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2003 for her significant and pioneering efforts for democracy and human rights,
especially the rights of women and children. She is the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to
receive the prize.
As a researcher and activist, she is known for promoting peaceful and democratic
solutions to serious problems in society. She takes an active part in the public debate and is well
known and admired by the general public in her country for the legal defense of victims of the
conservative faction’s attack on freedom of speech and political freedom.
Along with Iranian-American co-author Azadeh Moaveni, Ebadi is the author of the
memoirs Iran Awakening: One Woman’s Journey to Reclaim Her Life and Country and Iran
Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope. Her latest, The Golden Cage: Three Brothers,
Three Choices, One Destiny, was published in 2011.
Ebadi has also written a number of academic books and articles focused on human
rights, including The Rights of the Child: A Study of Legal Aspects of Children’s Rights in Iran,
published with support from UNICEF, and History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran. An
activist for the rights of refugees, women, and children, she is the founder and leader of the
Association for Support of Children’s Rights in Iran.
Ebadi argues for a new interpretation of Islamic law that is in harmony with vital human
rights such as democracy, equality before the law, religious freedom, and freedom of speech.
She also advocates for the rights of the Bahá’i religious community, which has long struggled
with a variety of problems and prejudices in Iran.
As a lawyer, Ebadi has been involved in a number of controversial political cases. She
was the attorney of the families of the writers and intellectuals who were victims of the serial
murders in 1999 and 2000. She has successfully worked to reveal the principals behind the attack
on the students at Tehran University in 1999. As a consequence of her activism, Ebadi has been
imprisoned on numerous occasions.
Ebadi campaigns for peaceful solutions to social problems and promotes new thinking
on Islamic terms. She has displayed great personal courage as a lawyer defending individuals
and groups who have fallen victim to a powerful political and legal system that is legitimized 313 Washington Street, Suite 225 | Newton, MA 02458 | Phone: 617.614.1600 | Fax: 617.965.6610 | apbspeakers.com
through an inhumane interpretation of Islam. Ebadi has shown her willingness and ability to
cooperate with representatives of both secular and religious views.
Shirin Ebadi earned a law degree from the University of Tehran. In the years between
1975 and 1979, she served as president of the city court of Tehran—one of the first female judges
in Iran. After the revolution in 1979, she was forced to resig
My name is Zunaida Victor and I’m a 26 years old girl from Italy. I have been in the tunnel of Islam for 6 years, and now I don’t adhere to any religion, I’m just a humanist. I still believe in God but no more dogmas or things like this, I had enough with Islam. I discovered it while I was searching a path to the Divine, and due to my fondness of Persian mystical poets I started to practice the deen at the age of 21. I used to read only apologetic books about the life of the so-called prophet Muhammad, and I thought he was a sort of Christ descended on earth to save humanity. Please, don’t laugh at my naivety, but if the finest intellects like Ibn Arabi said that the man was the best of creation it means that psychological power of this evil cult is very strong. Goebbels said that even a lie repeated over and over becomes truth.
When I went on in further reading of the sirat written by Ibn Ishaq and ahadith, I felt more and more uncomfortable with all the atrocities and insane absurdities I found in them – as a woman and (first of all) as a human. So I passed through a strong crisis because if Allah can deceive whoever he wants without any pity as it’s said in the Koran, then I was lost. After going in depth within the Koran also, I found out that it couldn’t be an uncreated book. There are clear opportunistic changes of religious and political agenda between the Meccan period and the Medinese one, too much incomplete phrases and a God that is represented like a Mafia godfather. According to Asharite theology Allah can deliberately do evil to his creatures, and we can’t argue with human reason in order of questioning the knowledge Allah has reserved to Himself. It’s for this reason Islam fears philosophy and the best intellectuals like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina were charged with apostasy.
I used to think this religion was the purest thing in this world, but it’s only a totalitarian cult. It’s not a case if its principal doctrine is tawhed. Tawhed means uniformity not unity. It’s a mercilessly reductio ad unum. Like the hellish desert sun, under which he was born, that destroys any sign of life around.
Islam doesn’t want free souls, it wants slaves. Totalitarian regimes care only to implement propagation of their ideology through the outer control of large masses. And for this purpose they need a fanatic army. We’ve seen in history that at long this method doesn’t work, for human mind can always been awakened at the end.
Muhammad instead did more: he implanted directly in the most inner corner of men the semen of self-deception; making people bow down towards Mecca several times a day and think in the same way, like robotic workers in a cruel assembly line. Whoever stops is fired in Hell. He promised men a heavenly brothel putting aside reward for women (who must obey even there), and made wedding and childbearing a categorical imperative. The burden is, of course, mostly on women’s shoulders, considered just a womb and a vagina for the satisfactions of their masters. Family is run as a military unit. Atheist philosopher Elias Canetti wrote similar things about religions in his greatest work, Mass and Power.
Unlike Ibn Taimiyya, my conclusion is that free evil is far better than a so called and unprovable Good imposed with violence. Free will, dialectic and ethical pluralism are the pillars of freedom. Who does not consider an individual outside his community is an enemy for freedom. It’s because of this that theocratic fanatics and other fascists hate the philosophy behind human rights. Continue with your job Ali Sina.
Muslims, both Mujahideen (violent) and non-Mujahideen (non-violent), are after the same goal; their only difference is tactical. The non-Mujahideen Muslims believe that infiltration and subversion are more effective than direct, armed attacks in conquering the Infidel (non-Muslims). Ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent”, for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same desire that bin Laden and others are pursuing through violence. On the one hand look at today’s Islamic situation in Europe and then consider the statements of Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne made at the United Nations in 1974:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends: Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
When Muslims migrate to an Infidel land, they do not enter a foreign land: They are actually occupying a land which Allah has reserved for them. Any Muslim will say that the entire earth belongs to Allah; therefore, every Muslim has the inalienable right to move to an Infidel land that Allah has held in trust for them, and then appropriate it, for the sake of Allah:
Qur’an 28:58: “Allah grabs the land of the unbelievers.”
Sahih Bukhari 4.53.392: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
Then, on the coercive side, consider what Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda’s commander in Afghanistan said as regards the December 2007 murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto:
“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat Mujahideen.” (Reflecting Qur’an 9:123: “The believers must make war on Infidels around them and let the Infidels find firmness in them.”)
———
ISLAM, the global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion, is the enemy. It is ISLAM that propels the styled insurgent groups operating in Uzbekistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Chechnya, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Africa, and Asia.
1.2 The willful blindness of today’s “free societies”
Today, “free societies” have put themselves in the peculiar position of penalizing non-Muslims who make legitimate associations that reveal the unpleasant realities of Islam, as if these comments somehow are acts encouraging “hatred and contempt”. You see, these associations do not reflect our government’s decision to abandon the “aggressive rhetoric” as regards the “war on terror”. The fact that Mujahideen routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact we are not supposed to, indeed, not allowed to notice.
Consider:
a) Is it not interesting that no Islamic religious authority has “pronounced takfir”, the practice of declaring unbeliever an individual or a group previously considered Muslim, on Mujahideen such as Osama bin Laden (9/11), Abu Bakar Bashir (2002 Bali) and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam, thereby “declaring them apostates” for their terrorism? This is not from fear of retaliation by those people, but recognition of the fact that they are not violating Islamic principles: Indeed, leading Islamic Clerics repeatedly establish the legitimacy of their actions.
b) On December 18, 2007 the U.N. passed by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions, the “Defamation of Religions” resolution. Although the resolution refers to defamation of “religions”, Islam is the only religion named in the text. It expresses alarm about “discrimination” and laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts “relating to security and illegal immigration.” Translated into straight language it means that, as far as the UN is concerned, “free societies” are required to stand by as mute witnesses to their own conquest and Islamization.
c) On January 4, 2008, the Pentagon “fired” Major Stephen Coughlin, its most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law. Major Coughlin demonstrated meticulously that “Jihad fi Sabil Allah—Jihad in the cause of Allah,” is the animating principle of Mujahideen and how this understanding should form the basis for rational, effective threat development assessment, and war planning. That Major Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered “controversial”, and lead eventually to his contract not being renewed, is symptomatic of today’s intellectual and moral rot plaguing efforts to combat Islam’s monstrous behavior (re: Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “The will to power”).
———
This curious behavior began shortly after 9/11 with “Islam is a religion of peace”, which soothed ideological sentiments of many, but has failed the “free societies” strategically. This short-sighted and Fantasy Based Analysis has short-stopped the objective, systemic evaluation of Islam. “Islam is a religion of peace” is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent analysis: It is, in fact, a major flaw under any research methodology. In other words, you have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis. This behavior has brought us to an “Orwellian” junction where presenting a straightforward evaluation of Islamic supremacist ideology becomes the new blasphemy: How perversely backwards this is. We cannot pretend that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that Mujahideen have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, we must confront Islam for what it really is.
1.3 Sharia Law
Sharia Law is readily obtainable in English. In applying Sharia law, or Islamic law, or Doctrinal Islam, or Muslim jurisprudence: NO Muslim can reject ANY part of Qur’an or the hadiths and remain Muslim (the alternative is becoming an apostate). Sharia is the EXCLUSIVE SOURCE of law for both Muslims and non-Muslims (the Infidel), and embraces ALL human activities – both personal and communal.
Sharia is understood as a series of duties and obligations; is not severable from Islamic theology; and as such it does not tolerate parties of differing opinion in its application. It exercises absolute and centralized control over ALL aspects of life. Islam does not consider itself to be the third Abrahamic faith, contrary to fond imaginings. It considers itself to be the only Abrahamic faith, the true faith of all the patriarchs and prophets, including Joseph and Abraham, and of which Judaism and Christianity are but falsifications and perversions. (Qur’an: 12:40; 48:28; 61:9; 16.52; 5:3; 9:33.) In other words, Islam is “the last religion”.
———
As in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. One certainly cannot disagree with the thought that all who today call themselves Muslims may not be “good” Muslims according to Allah, Qur’an and Mohammed. Also, one certainly cannot say that today there exists a “unitary plan and project” driving ALL Muslims to world conquest even though this is Islam’s primary objective. But consider young Muslim women who start wearing appropriate hide-all clothing: Their clothes are both a sign of their values, and of their family’s values. Those clothes say:
“We are not merely Muslims, but are true-blue believers and as true-blue believers, you may hold us to knowledge of, and submission to, the dictates of Qur’an and the hadiths.”
Now, how can you take seriously individuals who claim to be “good” Muslims and while looking at the floor, imply that they really are ignorant of what they are claiming to be? This would be most presumptuous on our part. Muslim ignorance of their ideology does not create the reality. If a person claims to be a Muslim they are also laying claim to the social order that ideology professes whether from the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, (Sunni) or Ja’fari, (Shi’a) schools of jurisprudence. Islam is not a race, ethnicity, or skin color. Adherence to Islam is not accidental or involuntary. You have to CHOOSE to believe in Islam and you MUST APPLY that ideology, exclusively, to be Muslim. After all, where exactly is there a sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims and non-Muslims should coexist peacefully as equals before the law on an indefinite basis? Answer: There is none.
Part 2 – A military campaign:
Let’s be clear. When Arab Muslims appeared on the world scene in 630 A.D. and when the armies of Mohammed began their conquest of the World, a military campaign ensued, not a missionary enterprise. Through the use of both force and imposed subjugation (see the book DHIMMI, by Bat Ye’Or) against Infidels, Muslims have been able to, for generations, forcibly convert or assimilate non-Muslims into their body of Islamic religious doctrine, Sharia.
Islam’s animosity toward America is certainly nothing new. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively,) met in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of Mujahideen emanating from the Barbary States belonging to the Ottoman Caliphate (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya).
During their discussions they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of this unprovoked animus (concealed by the euphemism “piracy”) directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
“… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise”.
History shows that the negotiations failed and the First Barbary War (1801-1805) caused Mujahideen to recede:
“The Senate ratified the Tripoli treaty in April 1806 by a vote of 21 to 8 and Jefferson declared ‘victory,’ but the ‘peace’ proved rather political…” (See the book Victory in Tripoli, by Joshua London.)
However, by May, 1815, President Madison had to commission two naval squadrons and dispatch them to the Barbary States to again confront Mujahideen:
“By June/July 1815, the U.S. naval forces had dealt Mujahideen a quick series of crushing defeats” (ref: The Second Barbary War, also known as the Algerian War).
Again, my point is that today’s “free societies” seem to be unwilling to decipher clearly the history and character of Islam. Do we not have an affirmative, personal duty to know ALL the knowable facts associated with the enemy?
2.1 It’s not that we haven’t been forewarned
In 1967, John Ralph Willis (see the book The Journal of African History) observed:
“The jihad…is essentially an instrument of revival, employed for the purpose of extending the frontiers of Islam and leading the faithful back to roots. And it is not insignificant that the faithful, being in essence conservative, have been as susceptible to the summons of revivalists as they have been insensitive to the activity of reformists”.
In the (1995) book: “Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, Appendix III — The Call to Jihad” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, one can read:
“The Verses of Qur’an and the hadiths (the Prophet’s legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honors which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they – Mujahideen are Allah’s troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahideen). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahideen) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior.”
In 2006 Jeff Stein, national security editor for Congressional Quarterly wrote:
“It’s hard to say what’s worse: Ignorance of jihad, for which there’s no excuse at this advanced stage of war, or indifference to it, for which there’s never an excuse. Both attitudes deeply imbue U.S. war policy.”
———
Today, thousands of individuals, indoctrinated as youths, are eager to engage in suicidal jihad, and many more are willing to die through acquiescence and submission, should the Islamic state so demand. The enemy soldier is highly motivated, thoroughly brainwashed, and willing to die for their God and their cause. The enemy’s children and soldiers memorize words such as these:
“Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . .”
“You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, or in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth…”
Part 3 – A Constitutional Issue:
If it is not yet clear to you, Islam is in diametrical opposition to the U.S. Constitution and Americas’ way of life: Separating jurisprudence from religion is an in-your-face denial of Mohammed teachings. This is the basic reason Islam is warring against the U.S. as the “Great Satan”. In other words, from day one, we “Infidels” have been thumbing our collective noses at Allah and Qur’an: Muslims discern everything American stands for as “an insult to Islam”. Indeed: Any sampling of the constitutions of Muslim Nations will reveal that Muslim Nations FORMALLY RECOGNIZE the absolute and centralized role of Sharia duties and obligations.
Our dilemma, as in the past, is not whether we have the “capacity” to defend “our” constitutional lifestyle; it is whether we have the “self-confidence”, and the “will” to do so today. These Islamic tribes-with-a-flag are assaulting us via several differing aspects:
a. Direct Islam
Ask yourself the following:
In which Nation is Islam:
1. Most solidly linked with political power.
2. Dedicated to the violent spread of Sharia Law.
3. Infused with hatred of America.
4. Is founded on these ideas.
5. And their practice is a matter of principle.
Dr. John Lewis writes:
There is a clear answer, which is known, admittedly or not, by almost everyone today. The political centerpiece of Islamic Totalitarianism today—the state in which Islam is most militantly welded to political power and contempt for America and the West—the world leader in the violent spread of Islam—is Iran.
The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since…. It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Islam against the West; and it is Iran that has gained the most power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.2
b. Subversive Islam
But, let’s not ignore another Islamic aspect demonstrated by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian Constitution is perhaps the most systematic in its tying Saudi governance to Islamic law. In keeping with its Hanbali jurisprudence, the Saudi Constitution states that Qur’an and the hadiths are to serve as the basis of all law for the Saudi state and, moreover, that Saudi government itself derives all of its governing authority from Qur’an and the hadiths. In looking for guidance when seeking out concepts of justice, equality and consultation, the Saudi Constitution limits such inquiries only to what is found in Sharia.
The Saudi Constitution “strives for the achievement of the Arab and Islamic nation” and looks to the safeguarding of “Islamic and Arab heritage.” However, Saudi Mujahideen (Sunni) have risen above the petty squabbles with Persian Shi’ite (Iran) and joined together against the “Great Satan” America (both the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks were undeniably Saudi Mujahideen operations).
The Saudi charity the International Islamic Relief Organization, in 2003, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East — but, it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Sharia books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of “good” young Muslim children trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allah Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad. Such “charitable organizations” are cleverly spreading the ideals and tactics of Sharia via infiltration and subversion.
c. Freelance Islam
Another formidable Islamic aspect is demonstrated by Egypt. The Egyptian Constitution is straight-forward in stating that Islam is the official religion of the state and that Sharia is the principal source of all law. Egypt’s Constitution also gives specific recognition to the “Arab Nation” and goes so far as to proclaim that the government is to work to realize the “comprehensive unity” of that Arab Nation. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928) was once thought of as nothing more than a fringe group. However, in recent years (with Saudi backing) the Muslim Brotherhood’s “takfir” ideology has undergone a surprising evolution with member groups involved in both criminal activities and financial institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood groups are dedicated to the motto:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
An article in the Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2005) talks about their advance on Europe:
Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and financial regulatory organizations such as the AAIOFI. Their ultimate goal is not simply “to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be”, but rather to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and the United States.
Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab’i, former Kuwaiti minister of education defines their tactics:
“The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology of takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy]. Sayyid Qutb’s book ‘Milestones’ was the inspiration and the guide for all of the takfir movements that came afterwards. The founders of these violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with bin Laden and Al-Qa’ida went out under the mantle of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Takfiri can be viewed as semi-aligned “free agents” who collaborate with other jihad groups on an ad hoc basis, working toward the same overreaching goal. Their doctrine postulates that not only the “secular leaders and their entourage” are apostates, but so also is “the society as a whole” because it was not fighting the “secular” government and had thus accepted rule by non-Muslims: It has been interpreted to allow the worst imaginable deviancies.
Takfiri, world-wide, are able to legitimize criminal activities, justifying these activities, by appropriating the goods and property of “Infidels and Apostates”. Criminal activities like thievery, kidnapping and drug trafficking are thus encouraged if one-fifth of the proceeds (Khums: Qur’an 8:41) are used to fund jihad (the path of Allah). Take for example:
“Mosul, 29 Feb. (AKI) – Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean bishop of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was kidnapped on Friday after he finished celebrating the rite of the Via Crucis at a local church. Eyewitnesses said that a group of armed men stopped the bishop as he was traveling in his car and took him by force. The extravagant demand for $2.5 million appears to indicate that their motives are political and religious, rather than only financial.” (Re: Adnkronos International, 2008.)
Takfir are also involved in theft from both private homes and mosques; they are heavily engaged in drugs; armed robbery; in the theft, trafficking and forging of documents; and in all aspects of logistical support for Mujahideen (purchasing/smuggling weapons and sheltering/moving operatives from conflict to conflict). The al-Qaeda/Takfir alliance is another example of keeping with the current drive to put doctrinal differences aside and federating and uniting all of Islam to fight the West.
d. National Islam
The term “National Islam” should be understood as an attempt to use Western nation-state language to describe the Islamic concept of Ummah: A concept that has no a real equivalent in the West. Discussions of Ummah, in Islamic terms, end up opaque and are prone to be characterized in cultural mythology or utopian terms.
The book “What Islam Is All About”, by the widely regarded children’s educationalist Yahiya Emerick, gives a Junior High School level reality check of the Ummah:
“The law of the land is the Sharia of Allah. The leader, or Khalifa, of the Islamic nation implements Sharia in society. In the Islamic political system, the leader of the political community, the Khalifa, is the head of the whole Ummah”.
Or, if you prefer:
“Oh ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Qur’an 4:59)
All Muslim nations, the Ummah, remain CONSTITUTIONALLY COMMITTED to BOTH the Islamic requirement to recognize Sharia as the pre-eminent basis of all law, and the authority of the Khalifa.
———
To comprehend today’s Ummah, one need look no further than currently existing Ummah-level organizations like the Arab League, the Supreme Islamic Counsel, The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Muslim World League – all of which have demonstrated an ability to speak with authority. These organizations speak dogmatically of “extreme responses,” and “grave consequences,” and of events being “an insult to Islam,” knowing full well that they are speaking to, AND ORCHESTRATING, an understood standard. Being attentive to their words, we have to acknowledge that they know exactly what they are doing in light of the Islamic system that defines their Islamic way of life. In other words, Ummah actions are not culturally neutral.
On February 18, 2008, in Dakar (West Africa), at the opening of the OIC Senior Officials Meeting, the Secretary General of the OIC, Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, said the following:
“…a very important event took place yesterday. Kosovo has finally declared its independence after a long and determined struggle by its people. As we rejoice this happy result, we declare our solidarity with and support to our brothers and sisters there. The Islamic Ummah wishes them success in their new battle awaiting them which is the building of a strong and prosperous state capable of satisfying its people. There is no doubt that the independence of Kosovo will be
an asset to the Muslim world by further enhancing the joint Islamic action.”
“The Islamic Ummah wishes them success”, “building of a strong and prosperous state,” and “enhancing the joint Islamic action”, clearly speak to an understood standard.
———
Consider just one example of Ummah influence today: Sharia is quite clear that any communication of information about Islam that would cause ANYONE, Muslim or Infidel, to “question” Islam violates strict rules of “slander” (Qur’an: 5:33). Ummah-level organizations (beholden to such a standard) have earnestly insisted that “Islam has nothing to do with it” – even in the face of evidence that would argue otherwise (hundreds of Mujahideen violently reacting to silly cartoons for example). Because a slander concerning Islam can easily amplify to an “insult” to Islam, those consequences can be severe, again, even if the “insult” was factually accurate (re: the 2004 BRUTAL MURDER and VIOLENT MUSLIM INDICTMENT of Theo Van Gogh after his film “Submission”, which portrayed the violence against women in Islamic sects, was shown on Dutch TV). You see, to outlaw “insults to Islam” amounts to an attempt to place Mujahideen actions above scrutiny, for any study of their motives and goals, insofar as they are rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, will be ruled offensive and hence forbidden.
Orchestrating events to discredit ANY disclosure of legitimate associations that lie beneath the surface of Islam is, indeed, a point of paramount importance as regards Islam’s infallibility.
Muslims, by coming together, world-wide, for common actions (and refraining from noticing questionable associations,) are at the same time both acknowledging, and submitting to, Ummah: In other words their common actions are announcing publicly and officially their devotion to Islam.
“Islamabad, Pakistan, March 7, 2008: Hundreds of activists of Jamaat-i-Islami and Imamia Students Organisation on Friday held protest demonstrations against the re-production of sacrilegious caricatures in a Danish newspaper and release of an ‘anti-Islam’ film in Holland. The protesters were chanting slogans like ‘Down with Danish and Dutch governments’ and ‘Down with USA and Israel’. The [Pakistani] protesters also torched the flags of Denmark and Israel.” (Re: DAWN, Pakistan’s English language newspaper.)
e. Fanciful Islam
As regards western society’s whimsical aspect of Islam, our President publicly declared that victory will be achieved, not by defending our constitution and America’s way of life, but by levying “democracy for the nations behind the attacks”. Unfortunately, this annunciates an ambiguous acumen of how Islamic sects really function. Victory, thus defined, requires that the system-of-rule for Islamic governments (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan, etc.,) FORMALLY defy, directly and categorically, their own constitutions and abandon the absolute and centralized role of Sharia duties and obligations.
The implausibility of this “solution” is that a democratic way of life is totally incompatible with Mohammad’s teachings. Furthermore, has it not been clearly demonstrated that even though Palestine’s Islamic sect has “democratically elected” Sharia, (i.e., Hamas); “democracy” has had no affect whatsoever on stopping “terrorism” on western society (i.e., Israel). The Hamas Charter states as follows: “Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it”: Not Hamas; Islam.
Part 4 – Conclusion:
For almost 1,400 years a pagan Arab tribe lead by Muhammad ibn Abdullah has successfully continued to forcibly convert or subjugate generations of human beings into a primitive cult of politics, religion, and justice that is literally based simply on what Muhammad ibn Abdullah willed it to be: After all, he changed it at will and determined whether or not its application in a particular case was suitable. Those that refuse: Die.
When we understand and acknowledge the expression and product of this collection of primitive legends which are nevertheless rather infantile, we understand and acknowledge that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with it. Muslims are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and are descended to the level of depravity where they do not view Infidels as human beings whose murder is an inherently immoral act. The fruits of Muhammad ibnu Abdullah’s adage that “only Muslims’ blood is equal” (Qur’an 32.18, 45.21) is Islam’s curse that cannot be eradicated, short of an astonishing radical reform from within – a reform far exceeding in boldness and scope those of Luther and Calvin. That seems no more likely today than at any time in the past thirteen centuries. Face it, fueled by the surge in petrol-dollars, the age-old struggle between Western Civilization and Islam has again gathered force. We have had a long period of submitting to Islam (dhimmitude) and our fellow Americans have come to believe that this happy condition is the natural state of life — it is not and it must stop before Islam’s final ultimatum.
Americas’ liberty has clearly been earned, very often in war. History demonstrates that negotiation with Islam has succeeded only when our side exhibited overwhelming advantage and after we have clearly shown ourselves to be not squeamish about using it. Today, justifying its use to the electorate (used to thinking of politics as a process of reasonable negotiation and compromise,) has to involve clearly proclaiming Islam’s moral myopia.
Today’s electorate’s lack of conviction to fully understand the possibility of an Islamist-provoked catastrophe putting an end to America’s comfortable political and social order may well lead to the destruction of all of us. Islam’s jihad for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over. Make no mistake, if we lose this war, our lives will undoubtedly be impoverished and endangered.
Finally, it is not the objective of this compendium to get you to acknowledge every one of the positions asserted but rather to convince you to submit these assertions to your own intense analysis in furtherance of generating your own acumen of the bitter foe we face. If you ignore the ideological language being used to justify the suppression of our liberties, if you ignore the historical, juridical, and theological structure of jihad and its subjugation of religious minorities, then you understand nothing about current events. This compendium will not succeed, however, if you, the reader, out-source your acumen to “experts” willing to volunteer “their” information UNDER THE SOLE CONDITION THAT IT BE ACCEPTED BOTH UNCRITICALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY. This is not only true because such an approach fails to meet any intellectual pursuit, but also because it fails for the same reason that it will lead to our defeat.
Dear Satyen,
Thanks for writing above blog very rationally. I feel some times disturbed to find all sorts of evil in this religion through various books, like following:-
MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED NORMAL SEX WITH DEAD WOMEN AND ANIMALS
Muhammad had sex with a dead woman to qualify her for the perks of a prophetic wife.
According to Hadiths and Sayings of Prophet on issues of women in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.
Narrated by Ibn Abbas: “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and SLEPT with her in her coffin.”
The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali, his son-in-law. Commentators have offered differing views about the significance of Muhammad’s sleeping with the dead-body of Fatimah in her coffin, some emphasizing that it had no sexual side. But Arabic scholar Demetrius explains that to express Muhammad sleeping inside Fatima’s coffin with her dead-body, “The Arabic word used here is “Id’tajat”, which literally means “lay down to have sex.”
Muhammad is also understood to have said that because he slept with her, she has become like a wife to his; so she will be considered like “mother of the believers”.
After Muhammad slept with her and “consummated”, Medina women routinely offered themselves to Mohammad for sex so that the holy fluid of the prophet released into them will qualify them for paradise. Here is a hadith.
All the charges againest prophet are baseless vist
http://www.quran.com to read full quran
http://www.muhammad.net to know about prophet muhammad
vist http://www.womeninislam.ws
to know position of women in islam
vist
http://www.answering-christianity.com
a site exposing all the lies againest islam
you also explore Ali Sina’s faithfreedom.org., in which he has explained what has been happening in the world of islam, especially in the name of religion. Also explore wafa sultan, Noni Darwish, formermuslimunited.com etc. Know the real face of faith and see the brutal oppression and the frank obsession for violence in whereever muslims are living, ALL IN THE NAME OF FAITH. That separates them from rest of the humanity- violence in the name of faith. No serious muslim leader comes out and condemns the muslims leders who spread violence, the apologists make weak noices and nothing more. If overwhelming majority are opposed to oppression, persecution and violence howcome they go on unabated in many nations.Go on lets hear you out