Kerala: Muslim publisher arrested over book promoting Jihad

dawah and jihad[TNN] KOZHIKODE/HYDERABAD: The managing director of Nanma Books, Abdul Rehman, was arrested on Saturday for publishing a book whose content could allegedly fan communal hatred. Rehman, a former SIMI activist, has been remanded in judicial custody.

On September 4, police raided a bookstall at Thirurangadi in the city and seized a copy of the book ‘Da’watum jihadum (Dawat and Jihad),’ the Malayalam translation of the Urdu book authored by Hyderabad-based cleric Moulana Abdul Aleem Islahi. Usman Kadungott, who translated the book into Malayalam, is still at large. “Cases have been registered under sections 153 (A) and (b) of IPC against the publisher and translator,” city police chief G Sparjan kumar said.

Police are yet to decide whether Islahi should be arraigned in the case. “We are investigating if controversial passages in the translation are present in the original work too,” a police officer said. Islahi is a preacher and rector of Jamiatul Banaat Al Islahiyah, an all-girl Islamic seminary.

According to Islahi’s son Moutasim Billah, the 86-year old cleric was expelled from the Andhra Pradesh chapter of Jamat-e-Islami Hind in 2000 for his hard line stand on the sensitive Babri Masjid issue. Incidentally, Islahi’s elder son, Mujahed Salim Azmi, was shot and killed in 2004 by suspended senior Gujarat cadre police officer Narendra Amin, currently lodged in Sabarmati Jail, whose role in alleged fake encounter cases is being probed.

When contacted, Islahi said, “I had written a book called ‘Jahiliyat Ke Khilaaf Jung’ (Struggle Against Ignorance) but no book called Dawat Aur Jihad. This book was translated into Malayalam around four years ago. Perhaps the essence of the book has been lost in translation.”

Intelligence agencies, which have been monitoring the activities of Nanma Books, alerted the state police about the book leading to the raid and seizure, the officer said. The publisher has been on the intelligence radar following suspicion that the main players are former SIMI activists.

On August 17, 2010, a book store on Kozhikode’s Court Road was raided after a Muslim extremist group chopped off the right hand of T J Joseph, a professor of Newman College, Thodupuzha town, for allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammad in a question paper.



19 thoughts on “Kerala: Muslim publisher arrested over book promoting Jihad

  1. India and Pakistan are brothers. They must love each other. India’s most favorite must be Pakistan and that of Pakistan’s must be India. If an Indian and a Pakistan are seen together, another person can’t tell they belong to two states. They share the same culture and the same history. If they fight together then they’re treating themselves like dogs.

    • Dear MM, correct 100%!! Islam is a religion of Peace and Hinduism is a religion ……
      is it a religion? Or a philosophy? Can a philosophy be recognised as a religion?

      Who makes those Idols, more idols and more and more idols? Do those Idols have a heart? Can an idol move it’s fingers? What sort of barbaric shameless brains are behind those idols that they bow to handmade objects and call them gods??????

      Is there any Scripture out of thousands which says this is word of god? Why do hindus NOT read their own most important Vedas? Isn’t it written in the rig vedas that there is ONLY ONE God? Isn’t it written in it that you shall make NO image of that God? Why do they still follow the most orthodox and barbaric practises to this age?

      Why don’t they accept that Islam is for the Whole Mankind, gives respect to a woman
      through dress Code and otherwise, stops Alcohol, Gambling, Raping, Killings, stops female infanticides and cruel Sati practices, stops stoning, Adultery, fornication….

      Isn’t Islam the better of the lot…as our ancestors opted to convert and follow Islam?


        “What is the real Islam?” The answers from Muslims and Westerners are contradictory and make us confused.

        There is one way to gain clarity and surety about Islam—our best rational approach is the scientific method.

        Let us start with the fact that the complete doctrine of Islam is found in three texts: Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (stories and anecdotes about Mohammed)—the Islamic Trilogy.

        The Koran is confusing as it is arranged, but it can be made straightforward by scientific analysis.

        The first step is to put the verses in the right time order, collect and categorize all of the similar stories. It is at this point that the missing parts, or holes, in the document become apparent. The life of Mohammed fills in and explains all the gaps and all the confusion falls away. Mohammed is the key to the Koran and Islam.

        The doctrine breaks down in time into Mohammed in Mecca (the early part) and Mohammed in Medina (the later part). In essence, there are two Korans, one written in Mecca and the second Koran written in Medina.

        The two Korans are the first grand division of Islamic doctrine.

        What is intriguing is that the two Korans include contradictions. “You have your religion and I have mine” 109:1 is a far cry from “I shall cast terror in the hearts of the kafirs. Strike off their heads…” 8:12. The Koran gives a way to solve these contradictions—the later verse is “better” than the earlier verse. But the earlier verse is still true. All the verses from the Koran are true because they are the words of Allah.

        The Koran defines an Islamic logic that is dualistic. Two things which contradict each other can both be true. In a unitary, scientific logic, if two things contradict each other, then at least one of them is false. Not so in dualistic logic.

        All of the doctrine refers to two classes of people—Muslims and non-Muslims, kafirs. The doctrine that applies to kafirs is political in nature and is rarely neutral or positive. The part of the doctrine that applies to Muslims is cultural, legal, and religious.

        The second grand division of Islamic doctrine is into religious Islam and political Islam.
        It is surprising how much of the doctrine is political. Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act.

        Even the concept of Hell is political, not religious. There are 146 parts of the Koran that refer to Hell. Only 4% of the people in Islamic Hell are there for moral reasons, such as murder, theft or greed. In 96% of the cases the person is in Hell because they did not agree with Mohammed. This is a political charge. In short, Islamic Hell is primarily a political prison.

        In summary, Islam is an extremely political doctrine. It has to be. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 followers. Then in Medina, he turned to politics and jihad and became the first ruler of all Arabia. When he died, he did not have a single enemy left to speak or act against him, a very political result.

        The Koran says in 14 verses that a Muslim is not and cannot be the friend of the kafir. This is pure dualism. The dualism of the Koran has no universal statements about humanity. The entire world is divided between Islam and the kafirs. The only statement about humanity as a whole is that all humanity must submit to Islam.

        Ethics are the membrane between religion and politics. Two sets of ethics are laid out in the Trilogy. One set is for Muslims and the other set is for the kafirs. Examples: a Muslim should not steal from another Muslim, a Muslim should not kill another Muslim, a Muslim should not cheat a Muslim.

        The kafir can be treated in one of two ways. They can be treated well or they can be robbed, killed, or cheated if it advances Islam. On more than one occasion Mohammed said to deceive the kafir. Jihad as a political method killed, robbed and enslaved the kafirs. This is a dualistic ethical system.

        Islamic dualism is hidden by religion. The “good” verses of the Meccan Koran cover the verses of jihad in the Medinan Koran. Thus religious Islam shields political Islam from examination.

        Scientific analysis shows us that there is a political Islam as well as a religious Islam. To argue about religion is fruitless, but we can talk about politics. We need to discuss political Islam, a system of ethical and political dualism.

        FEAR is what holds Mohammedans to their religion!

        Islam Exists Only Because People Fear Being Murdered if They Leave:


        If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Islam would have ended since the death of the prophet, peace be upon him. Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day.

        Surah 5:33 says: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that he should be murdered or crucified.” According to Abi Kulaba’s narration this verse means the apostates.

        And many hadiths, not only one or two, but many, narrated by a number of Muhammad’s companions, state that any apostate should be killed.

        Ibn ‘Abbas’s hadith: “Kill whomever changes his faith [from Islam].”

        Ibn Masud’s hadith: “Kill these three criminals: the adulterer, the murderer, and the apostate that leaves [our] community.”

        This in addition to a big number of other narrations, by other companions, about apostasy.

        The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy. Al-Qaradawi sounded matter-of-fact, indicating no moral conflict, nor even hesitation, about this policy in Islam. On the contrary, he asserted the legitimacy of Islamic laws in relying on vigilante street justice through fear, intimidation, torture & murder against any person who might dare to leave Islam.


        Islam is not a religion. It is a political system that was invented by one man – Mohammed. Why did he claim it was a religion? Upon a careful reading of the Koran and Hadith, it becomes clear that Mohammed was like any other charlatan claiming an exclusive relationship with God. He was neither the first charlatan to claim this, nor the last. In the past few decades itself, we saw many “mini-Mohammeds”.

        David Koresh in Texas (USA) made similar claims. He too was having sexual relationships with many women. David Koresh lived in an age where he could not get away with it. The FBI attacked his compound where he was practicing Mohammed-like things, and he was killed. In Mohammed’s time, a few desperadoes could impose this new “religion” called Islam upon many unsuspecting Arabs, at the threat of death. That is the ONLY difference between these two charlatans.

        Would God – who has the entire universe to worry about – be bothered to send verse after verse covering for Mohammed’s sexual misdeeds? Would God send verses allowing Mohammed to bed any “believing woman who offers herself”, and at the same time threaten Mohammed’s wives with dire consequences if they indulged in adultery? What kind of “God” is this Allah, anyway? The answer is – Allah is not God. Allah is just the ventriloquist dummy of a charlatan named Mohammed.

        You see, this charlatan never had any spiritual experiences. He made up this whole act. It is absolutely clear that this is the case when you read the Quran and Hadith. The happy ending for Mohammed was that he had a LOT of sex (66 women in total, not bad for a bedouin camel driver), and a LOT of power. His henchmen murdered men and women who so much as uttered any doubt about Mohammed’s “prophethood.”


        The spread of Islam outside of the Arabian Peninsula can be linked to the extensive trade routes connecting the Middle East to China. Arab Muslim traders exported their religion along with their goods. The conquest of non-Muslim lands by Muslim empires during the Golden Age of Islam was because they were technologically and militarily superior to many other Asian civilizations. The conquered was given a chance to either convert to Islam, become a slave or to be killed.

        Ishaq:587 reads

        “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”

        There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages.
        Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism.

        Most Muslims are not terrorists. But if they were truly good people, then they wouldn’t be Muslims. The seeds of terrorism are planted deep within the theology & psyche of Islam. This theology, when free to grow & blossom, will show itself in the actions of Muslims who are faithful to the example of Muhammad. And as was demonstrated in “Not Without My Daughter”, who knows when a peaceful, liberal or moderate Muslim will turn to fundamentalism and embrace the violence of Islam?


        Sahih Bukhari

        Narrated Aisha:

        The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

        Sahih Bukhari
        Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)

        (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
        Sahih Muslim

        Chapter 10:


        ‘A’isha: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

        Sahih Muslim

        Book 8, Number 3309.

        ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

        Book 8, Number 3310

        ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

        Book 8, Number 3311

        Sunan Dawud

        Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
        The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

        Book 41, Number 4915:

        Narrated AbuUsamah:
        The tradition mentioned above (No. 4915) has also been transmitted by AbuUsamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators. This version has: “With good fortune. ” She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him.

        Book 41, Number 4916:
        Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
        When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.
        Book 41, Number 4917

        As an older man of fifty-plus years, Muhammad married a mere child of six years old and co-habited with her when she was 9 years old. As quoted above, the most trusted collections of hadiths establish the authenticity of this oral tradition. But still, Western Muslims are embarrassed by these hadiths. Sometimes they use a Weak hadith defense to excuse Muhammad’s child marriage. At other times, they use an Arabic culture defense by claiming that no one has the right to judge Oriental culture by Occidental norms. Now, this is a strange defense to make, since Muslims frequently criticized Western culture as being morally decadent. If another culture cannot be morally evaluated, then other cultures must not be judged as morally decadent. But, this conclusion is not acceptable to Muslims, since they argue that an Islamic culture is the better culture. So, we must conclude that cultures may be evaluated morally, or that, someone is hypocritically judging others while not permitting themselves to be judged by the same standard.

        However, if hypocrisy is not a good alternative, then it is concluded that cultures may be evaluated morally. In fact, it is permissible, and even desirable, to have moral discussions on cultural issues. Moral discussions on cultural issues occur in many different cultures. So, the problem of Muhammad marrying a child cannot be defended on Eastern cultural grounds. The issue remains as to whether or not Muhammad acted rightly in marrying a six year old. Certainly, it is wrong according to the natural order of Allah’s creation. In fact, many nations of the world list such behavior as a crime against nature. Thus, it is concluded that Muhammad committed a grave moral sin against the moral order of Allah’s creation. And, his behavior is no example for others to follow. It is tragic to read news reports of old men marrying children in some Islamic countries, because they believe they are following the example of Muhammad who married a child. Muhammad had an interest in fondling young girls, so he criticized the lawful marriage union of two grown adults.

        Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
        When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

        Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17.

        In the classic history of “The Life of Muhammad” (Sirat Rasul Allah) by Ibn Ishaq, there is an account in which Muhammad expressed a marital interest in a crawling baby. This event seems to have occurred around the time of the Battle of of Badr which would have made Muhammad approximately 55 years old. He had married Ayesha two years earlier, when he was 53 years of age.

        (Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I
        I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab…1

        So, Muhammad’s interest in young girls extended beyond Ai’sha (‘Ayesha). Why would anyone think that Muhammad’s sexual interest in babies be “the timeless expression of the Will of Allah?” How does such a prurient desire support Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet of Allah? Such a desire by an old man is contrary to nature, and it is a perversion against the moral order of Allah’s universe.

        And surely thou hast sublime morals
        (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

        Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
        (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

        Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

        Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father

        Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha:

        Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

        Muhammad, 50, marries baby Aisha at age 6

        Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234

        Narrated Aisha: the prophet engaged (married) me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, um ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.

        …….she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some ansari women who said, “best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

        Bukhari vol 8, bk 73, no 151

        Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, & my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join & play with me. (the playing with the dolls & similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)

        HOW TO THIGH

        Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

        Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
        According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

        Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

        Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

        Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

        The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’
        After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers 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 small age.

        That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

        Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)


        From the Hadith of Bukhari:

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

        Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

        I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

        Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

        I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

        From the Hadith of Bukhari:

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        as above (229).

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

        Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

        I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

        Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

        I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

        Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

        Narrated ‘Aisha:

        I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

        Mohammed heard one of his wives was leaving him, so he rushed home where he found her on the carpet in front of the tent with her belongings; he sat down beside her & said, “I heard you were planning to leave me?”
        She replied, “Yes, I heard your other wives saying, you were a pedophile!”
        Mohammed thinks for a minute or so & then responds,
        “that’s a mighty big word for a 6 year old child.”

        THE QURAN

        Islam does allow you to marry pre-menstruating girls. The following verse is from At-Talaq (or Divorce). Islam’s main concern during a divorce is knowing who the father is (in case of a pregnancy). The waiting period is known as iddah.

        65.4 Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO COURSES (it is the same): for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make things easy for them.

        Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Commentary)
        And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have NOT YET MENSTRUATED, because of their YOUNG AGE, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.

        Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahid
        (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan Abu’l-Azhar Asbat ibn Muhammad Mutarrif Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those WHO ARE TOO YOUNG [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

        Islamic Website
        “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise…”

        Tafsir ibn Kathir (Read at your own leisure)


        They try to tell me my religion is wrong

        They try to tell me to follow Islam

        They said their prophet was a righteous dude

        But I found out none of their words were true

        I read the Quran and I read the hadith

        And the sickness of Muhammad was apparent to me

        He justified perversion in the name of Allah

        When he married a girl too young for a bra


        She was playing with dolls when the prophet came

        Her childhood was stolen in Allah’s name

        Aisha was nine when he took her to bed

        Don’t tell me that fool’s not sick in the head

        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

        Islam is not for me.

        Islam is not for me.


        The sickness of the Islamic mind

        Has caused the Mullahs to be blind

        To justify their prophet they would justify sin

        So the sins of the prophet are repeated again

        All over the world in Islamic states

        9 year old girls suffer cruel fate

        Sold into marriage to twisted men

        And Aisha’s sad story is repeated again


        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

        Islam is not for me.

        Islam is not for me.

        Do you care about women all over the world?

        Do you care about those little girls?

        Then stand up and fight for human rights

        Speak out against the laws of Islam


        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

        Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

        Islam is not for me.

        Islam is not for me.

        Islam is not for me.

        Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you.

        A cautious sensible man could be led astray by you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” YES! He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
        Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” YES!.
        He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Bukhari (Book #6, Hadith #301)

        Allah hated women with a passion. He despised all female homo sapiens both Muslim and infidel women. With such a deep hatred and loathing I don’t even know why he bothered to create Eve. Being God, why didn’t he just create man with both a penis and vagina and reproductive organs. Following are the immoral, depraved, insane, despicable LAWS of an immoral, depraved, despicable insane GOD.
        No rational, normal person can believe in such a God of hate.
        Muhammad described women as “unclean” creatures. Muhammad says, “3 things corrupt prayer: Women, dogs, and donkeys.” There are several other sayings in which Muhammad reduced women to the level of an animal. “Woman is a vile beast,” and “I think that women were created for nothing but evil.”

        The right to be treated as a dog, a pig, a monkey, or an ass
        Sahih Bukhari – 1.9.490, 493, 498 Sahih Muslim – 4.1039;
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2155; Mishkat ul-Masabih – vol 2, p.114, Hadis no. 789
        The right of ordinary women to be treated as crows
        Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

        BABY TILTHS:

        65.4 You can marry little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.

        Muhammad married Ayesha at age 6 to comply with this aya. He had to restrict himself to thighing before age of 9.

        Thighing is defined by Islamic scholar Khomeini in “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 as follows:

        “Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”

        The following is from a committee of muslim ulema answering the question:
        “the Prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, practiced “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers – may Allah be pleased with her.”

        Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132:
        Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a:

        The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”
        Ideally when you flog one of your wives, let her recuperate that day and sleep with your other wives or your slave girls

        Islamic way of beating or flogging wives is striking at their padded areas to avoid breaking any bones. Here is an example how considerate our prophet was when he beat his wives on their padded parts.

        Muslim Book 004, Number 2127:
        Ayesha narrated. “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”
        (However if your wife is breast feeding, prefer to strike on her buttocks


        It was customary to cut the external female genitalia completely when circumcising women. The Prophet instructed to do cutting in moderation. That showed his kindness and concern for women’s pleasure in love making.

        Sunan Abu Dawud B 41, N5251:

        Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:

        A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.


        33.50 Mohammed, any woman who offered herself to you is halal for you.
        Obligation to practice this aya made logistics a big problem for Muhammad who already had nine wives, his concubines, and a regular supply of captured women from jihadi raids. But Allah’s wishes had to be carried out.
        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,V 7, B 62, N 48:
        Narrated Hisham’s father:
        Khaula bint Hakim 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?”

        Bukhari,V 7, B 62, N 53:
        Narrated Thabit Al-Banani:
        “A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and presented herself to him, saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, have you any need for me?’ “Thereupon Anas’s daughter said, “What a shameless lady she was! Shame! Shame!” Anas said, “She was better than you; she had a liking for the Prophet.


        These are called in Islam the “golden rights and provisions for all Muslim women:”
        The right to be treated as diseased and as sex toys
        The Qur’an – 2:222; Sahahi Bukhari -3.31.172
        The right to be used as a sowing field
        The Qur’an – 2:223
        The right to enjoy another husband after the third divorce from the previous husband (hilla marriage)
        The Qur’an – 2:230; Sahih Bukhari – 8.73.107; Sahih Bukhari – 7.63.187
        The right to engage in Islamic prostitution through Mut’a marriage
        The Qur’an – 4:24;Sahih Bukhari – 8.3246, 3247, 3248;
        Sahih Muslim – 8:3252, 8:3253, 8:3258
        The right to be treated as impure or as a drunkard
        The Qur’an – 4:32; The Qur’an – 16:92
        To uphold the inalienable superiority of men over women and the right to be beaten by husbands—no questions asked
        The Qur’an – 16:92; Sunaan Abu Dawad – 11.2142; Abdur Rahman – 1 DOI, the recognized authority on Sharia in his book, Women in Society”
        To uphold the right of the husband to have four wives at any time and any number sex-slaves for all times; in case of objection by any wife, the husband can beat her
        The Qur’an – 4:3; Sunan Abu Dawad – 30.2.13; The Qur’an – 23:5-6, 70:29-30
        The right to be treated as a dog, a pig, a monkey, or an ass
        Sahih Bukhari – 1.9.490, 493, 498 Sahih Muslim – 4.1039;
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2155; Mishkat ul-Masabih – vol 2, p.114, Hadis no. 789
        The right of a Muslimah to be stupid and to become a servant
        Sahih Bukhari – 1.6.301; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34
        Muslim women forfeit their right to travel alone
        Sahih Bukhari – 2.20.192, 193; Sahih Bukhari – 3.29.85, 4.52.250

        Women must keep their sexual organs ready at all times for the husband to enjoy them unhindered at any time—night or day
        Sahih Bukhari – 4.54.460, 7.62.81; Sahih Muslim – 8.3367, 3368;
        Ghazali – vol 2, p. 43
        Women have the right to breast-feed an unrelated bearded man to make him haram (forbidden to her in marriage)
        Sahih Muslim – 8.3424, 3425, 3426, 3427, 3428
        Women are slaves (prisoners) and men are their masters (owners)
        Ghazali – vol 2, p. 33; Hedaya – p. 47
        Islamic marriage is about sex for money (prostitution)
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2105, 2.11,2106; Milik’s Muwatta – 28.4.12;
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2126; Hedaya – p. 44
        If a woman wishes to get rid of her tyrannical husband she must refund the ‘sex money’ (Mahr) she received from him during marriage
        Sahih Muslim – 7.63.197, 198, 199; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 12,2220;
        Malik’s Muwatta – 29.10.32
        Women have the right to undergo female circumcision (FGM)
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 41.5251
        Women are slaves and infidels—they are not fit to join the moral police force
        Ghazali – vol 2, p.186
        A husband has the right to have sex with his wife by force (the right to rape)
        Hedaya – p. 141
        Women are cheap—you can have sex with a woman by simply teaching her how to recite a few verses from the Qur’an
        Sahih Buhkari – 6.61.547, 548; Ghazali – vol 2, 31
        Barren women should be confined at home—they are fit only to be in the house-prison
        Ghazali – vol 2, p. 24; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.29.3911
        A woman has no say when her husband decides to add more wives in his harem; she can’t even ask her husband to divorce her
        Sahih Bukhari – p. 141
        A wife has the right to decorate her husband when he goes out to have sex with his other wives
        Sahih Bukhari – 1.5.270
        A woman should never be selected or elected as a ruler
        Sahih Bukhari – 5.59.709; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34
        Muslim women uphold the right of Islamic Jihadists to rape captive women right in front of their vanquished husbands
        The Qur’an – 4:24; Sahih Muslim – 8.3371, 3373, 3374, 3377;
        Sunaan Abu Dawud – 2.11.2150, 8.77.598
        Women are devils; they are as dirty and filthy as private parts are
        Sahih Muslim – 8.3240, 3242; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 26, vol 2, p. 43
        Fear the company of women—they bring bad luck
        Sahih Bukhari – 7.62.30, 31; Bukhari – 4.52.110, 111;
        Malik’s Muwatta – 54.821, 22; Sahih Muslim – 36.6603. 6604;
        Ghazali – vol 3, p. 86, 87
        Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man
        The Qur’an – 4:14, 2:282; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.40.4662
        Women are less human—they get one-third of blood money, no booty (for Jihad) for them
        Malik’s Muwatta – 43.64b; Sahih Muslim – 19.4458
        Women are worse than dead persons—they cannot follow a bier
        Sahih Muslim – 4.2039
        Men should always oppose women
        Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34
        Women are easily expendable—a divorced woman gets no maintenance or alimony from her ex-husband
        Sahih Muslim – 9.3519, 3522
        A woman has the right to stay at home solely to provide sex to her husband
        Hedaya – p. 54
        A woman becomes a harlot when she wears perfume
        Mishkat al-Masabih – vol 2, p. 255

        YOU TUBE
        Pedophilia in Islam , thighing children , fondling underage girls pedophilia – whole film

        What is “thighing”?


        Thighing of Female Children In Islam
        by Thomas Ahmed•
        Child Bride in Islam.

        Sure 65:4 Mufa’ Khathat – thighing ISLAM

        by Merauder2000•
        wwwislamqacom wwwislamqacom wwwaltafsircom schnellmannorg

        Muhammad Aisha Pedophile Child Rape Muslim Marriage Law 1 Muhaddithorg
        by AwesomeIslam•

        SHARIA LAW:

        In Saudi Arabia, the human rights group “Women to Drive” is protesting the light sentence given a Muslim preacher for the torture, rape and murder of his five-year old daughter, on suspicion that she was not a virgin. According to various reports, it is said that according to sharia law, a father cannot be executed for murdering his children, nor a husband for murdering his wives.

        The following ruling is promulgated by orthodox Sunni Islam; a parent is “not subject to retaliation” (or, retribution) “for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” Jihad Watch attributes the worldwide epidemic in honor killings to the spread of Muslims worldwide. According to some Islamic scholars, honor killings predate all the major contemporary religions of the world, and are part of the common primitive, tribal and patriarchal prehistory of mankind.

        However, international surveys indicate that many Muslims believe their religion sanctions honor killings. The recent ruling from Saudi Arabia indicates honor killing continues to be countenanced by Muslim jurists in majority Muslim countries. As to the meaning of “blood money,” it pertains to paying for the economic loss suffered by the victim or next of kin.

        According to the Talmud, in the case of a loss due to simple negligence, it is equal to three components: (A) medical expenses, (B) the loss of wages, and (C) the amount a person of similar status would pay to avoid the pain and suffering. In the case of a loss due to criminal negligence short of premeditated murder, the law of retribution (“eye for an eye”) pertains, although the victim could exercise mercy and accept only blood money. In the case of premeditated murder, there can be no mercy. That there is a distinction between simple negligence (such as an industrial accident) and criminal negligence is made clear in Deuteronomy Chapter 19.

        The law of retribution is thus confined to crimes as opposed to mere torts; and even in the case of criminal negligence, mercy might be exercised. While we are on the subject of “eye for an eye,” I will comment briefly of what Jesus had to say. He said “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Being hit on the right check is to be hit with the left or weak hand of the offender. It’s a Jewish idiom for being insulted. Jesus said do not return insult for insult, but see if an actual harm follows. In my Army days, we put it this way, don’t get into a pissing contest. (Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would put it that way.) Why even school children know this. They say, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

        Getting back to the law retribution, we could say that a parent is presumed to love his children and, so, in the absence of strong evidence, will only be held liable for blood money when responsible for the death of a child. If sharia law merely establishes a refutable presumption, it would make sense. Indeed, if you think that both revelation and reason are witnesses to the truth, reason would guide your interpretation of the Koran. This is how conservative Jews approach the Bible. We say you have to realize the texts come from a culture and literary style where allegory, exaggeration, sarcasm and humor are often employed, even where there are degrees of “no.” But, in Islam, the orthodox have been in charge for a long time now, and they almost insist that sharia law is to be followed even if it contradicts reason. I will conclude with a consideration of how faithful the Islamic scholars are the principle of restitution. As a forensic economist, I have numerous times offered my expert opinion to courts of law dealing with economic loss calculation. To be sure, I would adjust my calculation according to any specific information regarding the earnings potential or life expectancy of a particular person. In the absence of such information, I can only go by averages. Considering the per capita GDP of Saudi Arabia ($25,000), her work life expectancy (from 21 to 62), and the time value of money (at 6%), the economic loss suffered by the girl’s death is approximately $400,000. Not the puny amount $50,000 that has been reported! Those who claim they are doing justice are liars. And that they claim to do justice in the Name of God, they are damn liars! The man who killed this girl should, according to sharia law, be sold into slavery if he cannot pay $400,000, even if it accepted that he killed the girl out of a simple negligence. But, it is obvious that more than simple negligence was involved.

        Saudi Arabia’s Royal Family has intervened in the case of a leading cleric who raped and tortured his five-year-old daughter to death, causing outrage at home and abroad.
        Lama al-Ghamdi was admitted to hospital in the town of Hotat Bani Tamim in November with a crushed skull, broken back and shattered ribs. Social workers said that she had been repeatedly raped and her body burnt.

        REMEMBER Lama al-Ghamdi

        Lama al-Ghamdi a five year old child, was raped & tortured to death by her celebrity cleric father Fayhan al-Ghamdi.
        Lama al-Ghamdi’s back was broken and she had been raped and burned. She died in October from her injuries after seven months in hospital. Her father Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a prominent Islamist preacher, admitted beating her. Her mother Syeda Mohammed Ali, has said she will bring a case against her ex-husband.

        5 Feb 2013

        REMEMBER Lama al-Ghamdi, the 5 year old Saudi child who was RAPED & MURDERED by her MUSLIM PREACHER father. He paid BLOOD MONEY & WALKED FREE.

    • MM, why do Christians eat Pork when the Bible clearly prohibits it? :

      “And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you”.

      “Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you.”

      [Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8 and Isaiah 65:2-5]

        • Dear MM/Raj, any person who follows the Bible practically is called a Christian. Does that equate to a person who does not strictly adhere to the teachings of the same but is selective and follows that which suits his desire?

          In other words he violates the teachings of the Bible just as some extremist Muslims do with the Quran. Should they be called Muslims?

          Can the pork eating people be called Christians when they violate certain commandments?

        • MM, Islam is the religion for whole mankind. Which other Scripture says that???????

          Quran 31:3 Pickthall: A guidance and a mercy for the good.

          17:9 Pickthall: Lo! this Qur’an guideth unto that which is straightest, and giveth tidings unto the believers who do good works that theirs will be a great reward.

          68:52 (MS): The Quran is nothing but a reminder from God to mankind.

        • Raj, since the Devil was thrown away into Agni-fire to burn then where did the other devil as powerful as God in omnipresence come from?

          Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
          shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.(ameen)!

          Was Jesus a Prophet? Let us examine a few verses :

          Deuteronomy 18:15 (KJV)
          15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

          Mat 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

          1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.(“Spirit” meaning a Prophet)

          Mark 7:6-9…..against hadiths!!!!!
          Authorized (AKJV)
          6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men(Paul’s Epistles). 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
          9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

          Matthew 7:21 (KJ)(ONLY those who do the Will of Father(God) will enter paradise!
          21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the Will of my Father(God) which is in heaven.

          Matthew 24:24 (AKJV)
          24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

          Luke 7:16 A great Prophet is risen among us,

          Luke 24:19 Of Jesus of Nazareth, which was a Prophet..

          John 4:44 For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country

          John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”

          John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.(so who ruled the world when Jesus died?)

          Mat 11:11 Among them which are begotten of women, arose there not a greater than John Baptist. (was Jesus born of a woman called Mary? So John the Baptist was greater than all!!) refer also Luke 7:28

          If Jesus lived then he would be the greatest Prophet!

          Mat 16:13 “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”(Is “Son of Man” equal to ‘son of God”?)

          Mat 8:55 and keep His saying.(Jesus follows the teachings of God like all other Prophets!)

          Deut 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren.

          John 6:32 but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.



            Modern man groans under the weight of false conceptions regarding family, communal, and national excellence. These false conceptions, which are easily discernible in all types of individuals and at all levels of society, issue from self-centredness which, in religious language, is called “the depravity of man. This inner corruption is essentially rooted in the human heart and reveals itself in opposition to the welfare of the whole of society. Moreover, it manifests itself in rebellion against the Holy and Living God. The poisonous effects of sin have so corrupted men’s hearts that, in spite of their awareness of its evil, they enjoy it and freely indulge in it. It was this fundamental problem of sin and the search for freedom from its guilt and bondage which confronted Sultan Muhammed Paul.
            There may be those who choose to overlook the problem of sin and the way of salvation. They prefer to veil the condition of their hearts from themselves and others, though they well know that the hidden things of the heart are open to the inspection of God. For such persons, this story will have little relevance. Yet, there are others who are deeply concerned about sin and salvation in their own lives as well as the lives of their fellow men. For them, this booklet will help in the examination their own experiences in light of those of Sultan Muhammed Paul. May it prove to be a source of guidance and blessing from the Living God for all who ponder its contents.
            My native land is Afghanistan. My father was a resident of the capital of Logar, situated about fifty miles south of the city of Kabul.
            My father, Payanda Khan, held the rank of colonel in the Afghan army and had the title, “Bahadur Khan. He was known throughout the country as “Colonel Bahadur Khan. My father had two wives. The first was from among his near relatives. She bore him three daughters, but no sons. Lest the family should die out, he married the daughter of Sayyid Mahmud Aqa, a member of one of the most noble and illustrious families of Afghanistan. My younger brother, Taj Muhammed Khan, and I were born of this marriage. I was born in 1881.
            Shortly after Abdur Rahman Khan, the Amir (ruler), arrived from Russia to the throne of Kabul, he captured six of the country’s notables and deported them to some unknown destination. Later, they were put to death. Among these was my father. Then a second calamity befell my family. For political reasons, my two maternal uncles were seized, sent to the state prison in Kabul, and later banished to India. Shortly afterwards, my third uncle, with his mother and servants, came to India, with permission from the Amir, while the rest of my nearest relatives remained in Kabul. Upon arrival in India, they settled in Hasan Abdal.
            Owing to further political difficulties, our whole family relocated to Hasan Abdal. After several months my mother passed away. Eventually, after a reconciliation between my family and the Amir, Abdur Rahman Khan, all my family, with the exception of my three uncles and myself, returned to our native land.
            Later, I went to Delhi and entered the school, Madrasa-i-Fatehpuri, to perfect myself in the study of Arabic. At that time, the head mawlavi (instructor) was Mawlana Abdul Jalil, a pure Pathan of the District of Naushera (Pathans being the main ethnic group of Afghanistan). The second mawlavi was Fateh Muhammed Khan of Quandahar. By the special kindness of these two gentlemen, I soon completed my study of logic and turned to that of the traditions and commentaries. During the day, I studied with my classmates. In the evenings, I received special instruction from Mawlana Abdul Jalil. Thus, by the grace of God, I mastered these subjects.
            One day, when I was returning with some friends to the Chandni Chowk (the main thoroughfare of Delhi), we saw a large crowd gathered near our school. Arriving at the scene, we noticed that an argument concerning the doctrine of the Trinity was going on between a Christian preacher and one of our fellow students. The former found support for the doctrine in the following verse of the Qur’an:
            “And we are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (Sura Qaf 50:16)
            [ All references from the Qur’an are taken from Mohammad Marmaduke Pickethall, THE MEANING OF THE GLORIOUS KORAN, New York, 1954. ]
            He was saying that the first person plural (nahnu, “we”) is used here and that if the unity of God were absolute, the first person singular, (ana, “I”), would have been used instead. Since the student was giving an answer that was not to the point, my friends urged me to answer the argument of the preacher. Accordingly, I stepped forward and said that the first person plural of the pronoun, according to Arabic idiomatic expression, is used as an honorific and not as an indication of plurality.
            This was the first opportunity I had to meet a Christian in argument. On that very day, there was born in me an indescribable eagerness to argue with Christians, an eagerness derived from a deeply rooted fervour and concern for things sacred. Consequently, as far as lay within my power, I began to collect the notable books in refutation of Christianity. I made a careful study of many books, and on appointed days I began to go to the Fountain, to carry on discussions with the Christian preachers.
            One day, an English clergyman, who used to come with the preachers, gave me his visiting card and invited me to his house. He was kind and said that I could bring my friends with me. Accordingly, I went to his residence, in company with two or three friends. While we drank our tea, we began an interesting discussion on matters of religion. He turned to me and asked if I read the Bible. “Why should I read the Bible? said I. “Who would read such an altered book which you people change every year? At my reply, a pitying look appeared on the face of the clergyman, and he said with a faint smile: “Do you consider all Christians to be dishonest? Do you think we fear God so little that we would continue to deceive the world by changing the Holy Scriptures? When Muslims say that Christians keep altering the text of the Tawrat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospel), they suggest that all Christians are dishonest and that they are deceivers of people. Now this is a serious and unwarranted indictment. Christians believe in the Bible as the Word of God, as Muslims do in the Qur’an. Thus, if no Muslim can change the text of the Qur’an, how is it that a Christian can change the text of the Book of the all-wise God — the Holy Bible? If a mischievous Muslim were to be so foolish as to change the text of any verse of the Qur’an, would not all Muslims consider him outside the pale of Islam and publish the facts about him? In the same way, if some mischievous Christian were to change the text of any verse of Scripture, would not all other true Christians consider him outside the pale of their religion and publicise the facts about him? Of course they would! From this, you can see that the Muslims’ contention that the text of God’s Word has been altered is absolutely without foundation and futile. I believe that this contention is held by Muslims who are generally quite ignorant of the Bible and of the faith and doctrines of Christians.”
            The clergyman then gave me two Bibles, one in Persian and the other in Arabic, and urged me to read them. We thanked him and departed. I paid no attention to the plan which this man had suggested. My object in reading the Bible was to find flaws in it, to prove from it the truth of Islam, and to silence Christians in argument. I did not even read through the Bible from beginning to end, but only those passages which Muslim controversialists quote in their writings. As long as I remained in Delhi, I made it my business to carry on controversy with Christians.
            In time, I decided to go to Bombay. There, I had the good fortune to meet Mawlavi Hidayat Ullah who was highly respected in that region as a man of authority and great learning. His home was in Kabul, and he was well-acquainted with my family. As soon as we came to know each other in Bombay, he gladly promised to give me instruction. He felt that my regular course of studies was nearly complete, and advised me to give more attention to the study of literature. He also gave me permission to use his splendid library. Thus, I began my study under his guidance. This mawlavi had spent most of his life in Istanbul (Constantinople), Egypt, and Arabia, and was a literary genius. He taught in Persian, the mother tongue of us both, and this facilitated my course of instruction.
            During this time, another fine scholar, an expert in logic and philosophy, came from Egypt and was appointed as professor in the Madrasa-i-Zakariyya. This was Mawlavi Abdul Ahad of Jalalabad District in Afghanistan. When I learned of his eminence, I entered the Madrasa-i-Zakariyya and began a study of the advanced books on logic and philosophy. This mawlavi treated me as a son and gave me a room next to his own, so that I could call on him for help at any time.
            One day during the course of a walk, some of my fellow students and I arrived at the Dhobi Talab (a district in Bombay). There, we found some Christian preachers speaking to the people. Immediately, my old enmity was aroused as I recalled my previous experience in Delhi. I was ready to advance towards the preachers when a friend restrained me, saying: “Malawi Sahib, never mind these people. It is a waste of time to argue with them. These poor fellows neither know how to carry on a discussion, nor are they familiar with the rules of debate. They are paid to do this work and are fulfilling their duty, so there is absolutely no use in arguing with them. “I know all about these people, I replied. “They may not know the art and rules of debate, but they certainly know how to lead people astray. It is the duty of every true Muslim to rescue his thoughtless Muslim brethren from their plotting and deception. I stepped forward and began raising a host of objections to what they had said. They countered with a flurry of opposition to my objections.
            The discussion was finally cut short for lack of time. News of our encounter soon spread among the students of the school. They too were fired with zeal to engage in controversy. We went regularly, twice a week, to meet the Christians in debate. Eventually, two C.M.S. missionaries invited us to their home through Mr. Joseph Bihari Lal, their head catechist. While we were there, they said that the Dhobi Talab was too far for us to reach easily, so they offered to open a reading room near our school, where we could carry on our investigations once a week to our hearts’ content, if we really wanted to discover the truth about Christianity. I gratefully accepted this offer. When the reading room was opened, we met them there, according to a fixed schedule.
            When I perceived that the students in the school and my other friends knew nothing of the Christian religion, and were inexperienced in debate, I rented another house, on the advice of Mawlavi Abbas Khan Sahib. There, we formed a society called “Nadwatul Mutakallimin”, with the aim of preparing controversialists against all non-Islamic religions, with special reference to Christianity.
            When my instructor noticed that I was always involved in controversy and that I had no other interest in life, he came into my room one day after evening prayers. Just at that time, I was reading the Injil. He asked me what I was reading. I told him and he responded angrily, “I fear lest you become a Christian.” I was very much provoked at his reply and, although I did not wish to seem disrespectful, I could not help saying: “Why should I become a Christian? Does the mere reading of the Injil make one a Christian? I am reading it in order to destroy Christianity root and branch. You should encourage me in this matter instead of finding fault with me.” He replied: “I said this because I have heard that he who reads the Injil becomes a Christian. Have you not heard what a certain poet has said: `When he reads the Injil, the heart of the faithful one turns away from Islam’?” “This information is inaccurate,” I replied. After giving me further counsel, the mawlavi returned to his room.
            This interesting religious conflict went on for some years, when suddenly I became possessed with the desire to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Immediately, I made the necessary arrangements, boarded the steamship, “Shah-i-Nur”, enroute to Jeddah, and then went to Mecca. From Mecca, I corresponded with Mawlavi Hassamud Din, editor of the “Kashful Haqaiq”. On the day of pilgrimage, I donned my pilgrim attire and proceeded to Mt. Arafat. On that day, I saw a wonderful sight: the rich and poor, the high and low, all dressed in the same white garment. It looked as if all the dead, clad in their shrouds, had emerged from their graves to render their accounts. The sight brought tears to my eyes. But at the same time a thought struck me: “If Islam is not the true religion, what will my condition be on the Day of Resurrection?” Then and there, I prayed to God: “O God, show me the true religion and your true way. If Islam is the true religion, keep me steadfast in it, and grant me grace to silence the opponents of Islam. If Christianity is the true religion, then reveal its truth to me. Amen.”
            After a brief visit to Medina, I returned to Bombay. During my absence, the “Nadwatul Mutakallimin” had disbanded. Immediately upon my return, I organised another society in its place. I myself became president of this society, and Abdur Rauf was its secretary. At his house, near Grant Road, our organisation held its meetings. It was our custom each week to invite a non-Muslim to address us, and one of our members was to answer the argument of our guest. Munshi Mansur Masih used to come regularly to speak for the Christians. Others came to speak on behalf of the Arya Samaj (a Hindu theistic association).
            A VITAL ISSUE
            One day, Munshi Mansur Masih addressed us very convincingly that there is no salvation in Islam. The members of our society asked me to answer him. To the best of my ability, I tried to prove that there is perfect and certain salvation in Islam. The audience appreciated my address; yet, in my innermost being, I knew very well that my answer left me unconvinced. In fact, as I spoke, I was compelled to admit the weakness of my position. Though I had made much more noise than my antagonist, his voice was thundering in my soul with an indescribable power.
            It was nearly 11 p.m. when this discussion ended. I returned home and sat down to think carefully about what Munshi Mansur Masih had said. The more I thought, the more evident it became to me that salvation is the vital breath of religion and its necessary foundation. Without it, a religion is not a religion. Furthermore, I recognised that man is a bundle of forgetfulness, disobedience, and transgression. His life never remains so pure as to be absolutely free from the stain of sin. Sin has become man’s second nature. It is a true saying that “to err is human. The essential question is: how can one escape accountability and punishment? How is one to be saved? It became my duty to investigate this matter honestly and without prejudice. If I found that salvation was certainly to be had through Islam, then I would thank God. How bright my eyes would be and how glad my heart! But if Islam provided no such assurance, then I would be compelled to seek that religion which presents a satisfying plan of salvation. When I came to this decision, I fell on my knees in prayer before God and wept bitterly, covenanting that thereafter I would not read the Bible as I had been reading it. I would read it so that I, a miserable sinner, might discover in it the way of salvation.
            From that day onward, I changed my attitude and, as a genuine seeker of truth, began reading and comparing the Bible with the Qur’an. For my further peace of mind, I borrowed a copy of the Avesta (the Zoroastrian book of sacred writings) from a Parsi friend, and bought a copy of the Satyarth Prakash. Then, I began to compare all these books. After reading the Avesta carefully and talking with Parsi scholars, I became still more dejected regarding the way of salvation, for there is no reasonable method of salvation set forth in this religion.
            I turned next to the study of the Satyarth Prakash written by Swami Dayanand Sarasvati, which may be considered the most authoritative work setting forth the doctrines of the Arya Samaj. I read it with the hope that I might find in it that for which I was searching. But instead, I found strange doctrines which made my hair stand on end. I learned from it that God cannot forgive sins. I was amazed at this and concluded that it was absolutely useless for anyone to join the Arya Samaj in the hope of gaining salvation. According to the Arya Samaj, God could not forgive a man’s sins, whether committed before or after his becoming an Arya Samajist. Hence, punishment is inescapable.
            Furthermore, I discovered that the Arya Samaj do not consider salvation to be eternal. It became clear to me that there is no salvation with the Arya Samaj and that, even if salvation were obtained by one way or another, it would not be eternal. Consequently, since salvation is temporal, would not one continually fear that further happiness might be refused him at any time? When I reached this point and saw that there was no salvation here for a sinner like myself, I discontinued my study of the Satyarth Prakash.
            The most weighty task confronting me was that of examining the Qur’an and the most reliable of the Traditions. Before beginning my search for the doctrine of salvation in these works, I raised my hands to God in prayer:
            “O God, You know that I am and was born a Muslim, and that for generations my ancestors were born Muslims and have died in this religion. In it, I too have been raised and have received my education. Therefore, remove every obstacle that would prevent me from discovering Your true way, and show me the path of Your salvation, so that when I leave this transitory world, I may not be displeasing to You. Amen.”
            What I found out through studying the Qur’an was what I had known before: attaining salvation is dependent upon doing good works. I found many verses which declare this doctrine, but shall quote only two of them here:
            But as for those who believe and do good works, for them are the Gardens of Retreat — a welcome (in reward) for what they used to do. And as for those who do evil, their retreat is the Fire. Whenever they desire to issue forth from thence, they are brought back thither. Unto them it is said: Taste the torments of the Fire which ye used to deny (Sura al-Sajda 32:19,20).
            And whoso doeth good an atom’s weight will see it then, and whoso doeth ill an atom’s weight will see it then (Sura al-Zalzalah 99:7,8).
            At first glance, these verses were very beautiful and consoling, but in my mind they raised a question: Is it possible for us to do only good and no evil? Does man possess such power? When I considered this carefully, and at the same time reckoned with the faculties and passions of man, it became clear to me that it is impossible for man to remain sinless. He has no power to continually do good and only good.
            The moral philosophers of Arabia claimed that there are four faculties in man which give rise to all his actions. Of these four, three powerful ones work against his spiritual interest. There is only one, the angelic faculty, which impels man towards God, helping him to obey God’s commands; but its effects are hidden from man’s sight. On the other hand, there is the combined strength of the other three faculties, the effects of which delight and motivate man at once. Therefore, the mind of man sees only what is on the surface; he cares only for the present, pays more attention to worldly things, and becomes careless in the things of the Spirit and God. A distinguished Muslim described the matter thus:
            “I am trapped in four things, the ascendancy of which is the cause of my misery and suffering. These four things are Satan, the world, lust, and greed. How may I be free from these when all of them are my enemies? Evil desires allure me and throw me into the dark abyss of sensuality and pleasure.”
            According to the Arabic philosophers, the three faculties gained mastery over the angelic faculty, and Adam did that which God forbade him to do. The result has been manifestly inherited by his descendants down to the present time. According to a Tradition:
            It is related from Abu Huraira that the Apostle of God said: “When God created Adam, he stroked his back, and there fell from his back all the men whom He was creating from his descendants until the Day of Resurrection. And He placed before the eyes of each man a flash of light. Afterwards, He brought them to Adam. Adam said: `O my Lord, who are these?’ He replied: `They are thy descendants.’ And he saw a man among them whose flash of light between his eyes astonished him. He said: `O my Lord, how long have You fixed his life?’ He replied: `Sixty years.’ Adam said: `My Lord, increase it from my life by forty years.’ The Apostle of God said: “When the life of Adam was completed, except for forty years, the angel of death came to him. And Adam said: `Are there not yet forty years of my life remaining?’ He replied: `Did you not give them to your son, David?’ Then Adam denied this, and his descendants have denied, and Adam forgot and ate of the tree, and his descendants have forgotten, and Adam sinned and his descendants have sinned” (Tirmidhi).
            From this Tradition, it is clear that all the children of Adam are assuredly sinners because Adam’s sin has entered into all. Accordingly, saints and religious leaders have confessed their sins. Thus Adam, the first of the prophets, and Eve say:
            “They said: `Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost!’” (Sura al-A`raf 7:23).
            Likewise, the Prophet Abraham says:
            “Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents and believers on the day when the account is cast” (Sura Ibrahim 14:41).
            The Prophet of Islam makes this prayer:
            “O God, wash my iniquities with snow-water” (Bukhari).
            Abu Bakr, the first caliph of the Prophet of Islam, says in his famous poem:
            “O God, how shall I be saved, for there is no goodness in me? I am overwhelmed with iniquities, but am wanting in goodness.”
            In addition to all this evidence, the following verse from the Qur’an maintains that all men are sinners:
            “Lo! man is an ingrate unto his Lord, and lo! he is a witness unto that” (Sura al-`Adiyat 100:6,7).
            In this connection, the following thoughts confronted me: the Prophet Jesus was also a man. The Qur’an refers to the sins of the other prophets. But why does the Qur’an record no sin of Jesus? As I found that the Qur’an records only the sinlessness of Jesus, I therefore turned to the Injil. Here I found the following verses:
            “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46).
            “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
            “For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
            “[He] committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22).
            “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).
            Thus, there is solid evidence to prove that, with the exception of the Prophet Jesus, all mankind are sinful. Under these circumstances, who was I that I should claim to be able to gain salvation by good works, when many religious leaders, philosophers, and saints had failed to run this impossible course?
            Again I turned to the Qur’an to examine its teachings about the doctrine of salvation by works. I will quote two verses here which make it clear that no human being can escape condemnation, no matter what his status may be:
            “There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. Then we shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there” (Sura Maryam 19:71,72).
            Another translation reads: “There is not one of you who shall not pass through the confines of Hell…” (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, penguin Books Ltd., Middlesex, 1959). Still another translation reads: “No one is there of you who shall not go down unto it…” (J.M. Rodwell, The Koran, J.M. Dent and Sons, London, 1950).
            No one but myself knows with what terror, dismay, and disappointment I read these words. I, a spiritually sick man, was reading the Qur’an as if I were consulting a physician, so that it might offer me the remedy for my sinfulness. But instead of giving me a solution, it said: “Everyone of you will go to perdition, for this is the absolute duty of thy Lord.”
            But my natural love and attachment for the faith of Islam forbade me to make haste in my personal decision. I thought it fitting to seek a commentary on this verse in the Traditions, that I might see what the Prophet of Islam himself has to say on this matter. After a long search, I found the following Tradition in the Mishkat (a famous book of Sunni Traditions):
            Ibn Masud said that the Prophet of Islam said: “All people shall enter hell. Then they will come out of it according to their works. Those who will come out first will do so like a flash of lightning, the next like a gale of wind, then like a horse at full speed, afterwards like a swift rider, then like a man springing, and finally, like the walk of a man” (Tirmidhi and Darimi).
            The meaning of the previous verse was now clear. It is inevitable that everyone will enter hell and then emerge according to his works. The meaning of the Qur’an was plain and was supported by the statement of the Prophet of Islam himself. I wished that I could have ended my search at this point, but thought it best to seek an interpretation in the Qur’an itself. Thus, after a long search, I came upon this verse:
            “And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing, save him on whom thy Lord hath mercy; and for that He did create them. And the Word of the Lord hath been fulfilled: Verily I shall fill hell with the jinn and mankind together” (Sura Hud 11:118,119).
            I was so stricken after reading this verse that I slowly closed the Qur’an and became absorbed in anxious thought. Even in sleep I found no rest, for my waking thoughts, taking form in the realm of dreams, made me uneasy. It was unspeakably hard for me to forsake the faith of my fathers; I would have been more willing to forsake life itself. For some time, I kept trying to think of some method of evading the problem or some way of escape, so that I would not need to leave Islam. With this intent, I began to search for help in the Traditions. This was no easy matter, for the Traditions are contained in six thick volumes. Moreover, it is a most difficult task to apply the principles of the science of the Traditions to each Tradition. But despite these difficulties, I carried my work to completion, with the help of God.
            According to the Traditions, there are three ways of salvation. First, there is absolutely no connection between works and salvation. The very worst sinner, who has spent his whole life breaking God’s laws, may enter paradise. Also, the best kind of man, having spent his life in good deeds, may enter hell. The following Traditions speak for themselves:
            Hazrat Anas relates that the Prophet of Islam was riding, followed by Maadh. When the Prophet repeated thrice, “Anyone who honestly believes and repeats: `There is but one God, and Muhammed is his prophet,’ shall never be doomed to the fire of hell,” Maadh said, “O Prophet of God, shall I not proclaim these tidings?” The Prophet answered, “In that case, they will believe in nothing else but this” (Mishkat).
            On this subject, there is a Tradition handed down by Abu Dharr, the words of which force the conclusion that salvation by works is meaningless, for even the adulterer and thief obtain salvation by the mere repetition of the words of the Muslim creed. The Tradition runs thus:
            It is related from Abu Dharr that he said: “I came to the Prophet, and he had a white cloth over him and was sleeping. Later on, I came to him after he had awakened. Then, he said: `Any servant of God who says, “There is no God but Allah,” and afterwards dies relying on that, will enter heaven.’ I said, `Although he commit adultery or steal?’ He replied, `Although he has committed adultery and theft.’ I said, `Although he commit adultery and theft?’ He replied, `Although he commit adultery and theft, and in spite of Abu Dharr’” (Muslim, Bukhari).
            I found another Tradition, as comforting as a basket of sugar to a child, which promises that , whether a man does good or evil, he can obtain paradise by means of the repetition of a few words. It reads as follows:
            It is related from Ubadah bin Samit that the Apostle of God said: “Whoever bears witness that there is no God but Allah alone, and that He has no partner, and that Muhammed is His servant and His Apostle, and that Jesus is the servant of God and His apostle and the son of His handmaid and his word which He cast into Mary and a spirit from Him, and that heaven and hell are true, God will take him into paradise, in spite of what his works may have been!” (Muslim, Bukhari).
            When I read these Traditions, the question came into my mind whether it is just that one who spent his whole life doing evil and never thought of good should enter paradise at death, while another who has spent his life in the fear of God, self-restraint, and good works should be cast into hell at death.
            Secondly, it is shown in the Traditions that salvation is dependent upon the mercy of God — so much so that the Prophet himself is a needy beggar of this mercy. Unless God has mercy upon him, the Prophet himself cannot obtain salvation through works. One Tradition in the Mishkat reads as follows:
            Abu Huraira reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No one of you will enter Paradise through his good works.” They said: “Not even you, O Apostle of God?” “Not even I,” he replied, “unless God cover me with His grace and mercy. Therefore be strong, and morning and evening, nay every moment, try to do good.”
            The reader should kindly bear in mind that Christians do not deny the necessity of doing good works. Christians realise that they are to be always engaged in good works; however, their salvation does not depend upon their works, for no person can do more than is required of him. Thus, no one can do excess works which might serve as an atonement for his evil works (See Luke 17:7-10 [Sultan]).
            Compare also the following Tradition:
            Jabir reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No good works of yours can ever secure heaven for you, nor can they save you from hell — not even me, without the grace of God.”
            From these Traditions, I understood that no one can obtain salvation unless God’s mercy rests on him. This comforted me a little, but at the same time I began to think: If God is merciful, He is likewise just. If God should forgive by the exercise of His mercy alone, He would be evading the demands of His justice and righteousness. Such an evasion of His justice would indicate a defect in the being of God. Certainly such an act would be unworthy of the glory of God.
            The third thing that became clear to me from the Traditions was that even the Prophet of Islam cannot save anyone, not even his daughter, Fatimah, or his relations. Hence, the idea that the Prophet would intercede for the faithful, which I thought would surely be correct, proved to be wrong. One Tradition runs thus:
            Abu Huraira related that when the verse, “Cause thy near relatives to fear,” was revealed to the Prophet of Islam, the Prophet arose and began to proclaim: “Oh people of the Quraysh, and you sons of Abdul Manaf, and you Abbas, son of Abdul Muttalib, and you, Safiyyah my aunt, I cannot save you from the punishment of the Day of Resurrection. Take care of yourself, O my daughter Fatimah; you may use my property, but I cannot save you from God. Take care of yourself” (Bukhari).
            So, after an extended and penetrating study of the Traditions, there remained nothing more for further research. In sheer terror and desperation, I closed the books of the Traditions and prayed to God:
            “O God, my Creator and my Lord, You know the secrets of my heart better than I know them. You know how long I have been seeking Your true religion. I have carried my investigation as far as I have been able. Now, therefore, open to me the door of Your knowledge and Your salvation. Grant that I may enter into the company of Your people who are well-pleasing unto You, so that I may be exalted and content, when I enter Your glorious presence. Amen.”
            In this desperate and depressed state of mind, I again began to read the Holy Injil with the idea of correcting any possible defects in my investigations. As I opened the Holy Injil this time, my eyes fell on these words:
            “Come to me, all who labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
            I cannot say how I happened to come across this passage in the Gospel according to Matthew. I did not intentionally seek it. On the other hand, it was not a chance occurrence; it was the God-given answer to my hard labour and sincere investigation. For a sinner like me, it was indeed the supreme proclamation of good news. This life-giving verse had a tremendous effect upon me. It brought me peace, comfort, and joy and immediately banished all uneasiness and uncertainty from my heart. The Messiah claims: “I will give you rest. He shows how salvation depends upon Him. He does not merely point to a path which is above or beyond Him, but says: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
            Yet, the question came to my mind: Can one have confidence in this extraordinary claim of Christ? I concluded that one could rest upon it, for in the first place, Christ is accepted by Muslims as sinless, glorious in this world and the next, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God. These and other descriptions, which are applied to Jesus, indicate perfection. Secondly, according to Christians, he is perfect God and perfect man, free from all base passion and worldly ambitions. Thus, it is impossible that Christ, who, according to both Muslims and Christians possesses the highest qualities, would sin or do anything unworthy of Himself.
            I then began to ponder how Christ promised to give salvation. To set my mind at rest, I began to search through the Holy Injil and came upon this verse:
            “… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).
            Upon reading this verse, I discovered how God offers salvation. Christ gave His life for us sinners. This is a marvellous way, to which the world can show no counterpart. Scores of men have founded religions in this world, but none of them has claimed that his death will serve for the forgiveness of sins. Christ alone not only made this claim, but also fulfilled it.
            At this thought, I fell into a state of ecstasy. The picture of Christ and His love for men made an indelible impression on my heart. But while I was absorbed in this ecstasy, another question came into my mind: What was the need of Christ’s sacrifice and atonement? Could He not have given salvation without giving His life? After some further thought, I found the answer to this also: God is both merciful and just. If Christ had promised salvation without giving His life, the demands of mercy would certainly have been fulfilled. But in order to satisfy the demands of justice also, Christ paid the ransom — His precious blood. In this way, God has manifested His love for us.
            “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
            I continued my investigation in the New Testament and read it several times from beginning to end. I found hundreds of verses and scores of parables which proved to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that salvation — the very heart and purpose of religion — is available only through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I quote one passage here to prove this point:
            “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed….” (Romans 3:19-25).
            After completing the investigations which I have described, I came to the conclusion that I would become a Christian. Under these circumstances, it appeared to me to be honourable to present the whole matter before the society, that they might consider it and that I might be free from any charge of pursuing my investigations in secret.
            I went to the meeting as usual. It was again the turn of Munshi Mansur Masih to speak. Before he began, I interrupted by stating that on this occasion I myself would speak against Islam. I then proceeded to describe the results of my many years of research. The officers of the society were amazed at my words but took comfort in the hope that I would make the rebuttal to my own address. When I finished and took my seat, the vice-president said, “We hope that the president himself will make his own rebuttal to his unfavourable address.” Again I rose and said: “Listen to me, my friends. What I have explained to you is not something which is superficial and fabricated. It is a matter which is certain and decisive, based on years of investigation. To be more specific, it began on that day when Munshi Mansur Masih addressed us on the subject of salvation. At that time, I promised God that henceforth I would read the Holy Bible, not as I had read it previously, but as a seeker after truth, so that the way of truth and righteousness might be revealed to me. Accordingly, setting aside prejudice and philosophical quibbling, I compared the Avesta, Satyarth Prakash, the Bible, and the Qur’an. I came to the conclusion that salvation is to be found in Christ only. That is all I have to say. If there is any defect in my investigation, I would be grateful if any of you gentlemen would point it out. On the other hand, if you yourselves wish me to make the rebuttal to these arguments, I tell you frankly that I cannot answer them; nor is there hope of an answer from anyone else.”
            I left the meeting, as it was not prudent for me to remain there longer. Munshi Mansur Masih immediately followed me. When he caught up with me, he embraced me and began to shed tears of joy, saying in a trembling voice, “You must come home with me tonight. It is not safe for you to spend the night alone in your room.” I replied that the officers of my organisation were educated gentlemen, and that I need fear nothing from them. “Of course,” I added, “there are others whom one must fear. I shall come to your house before daybreak. If I am not there by that time, you may kindly come to my lodging.”
            After making this arrangement, we separated. I went to my room, bolted the door from the inside, and extinguished the light. I sat down, immersed in thought. I will never forget the fearful fancies and spiritual struggle of that night. It was a night of decision, a night of most desperate testing. At times, the thought confronted me that, if I should become a Christian, I would lose my country, my inheritance, my rights, my family, my friends — in short, everything. I was also bothered by the idea that becoming a Christian would mean entering a world where manners and all else would be different from that to which I had been accustomed. Sleep was impossible that night.
            Finally, I said to myself: “Sultan, consider that you are the child of an hour and the world is fleeting. When you die, your country and inheritance will be of no benefit to you; nor will your family and friends be of help to you. All these belong to this world alone. Nothing but your faith can go beyond the grave. Therefore, it is not wise to forsake eternal life and spiritual happiness for the sake of this transitory life.” I then bowed my knees before God and offered this prayer:
            “O, omnipotent, eternal God, Searcher of hearts, I yield myself to You. Accept this offering and protect me from all the snares of the devil and from spiritual dangers. Remove from my heart the world and its desires. Grant me courage and strength that I may be able to confess Your only Son Jesus Christ publicly before all men. Hear and accept my prayer for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.”
            After finishing this prayer, I felt somewhat drowsy and slept for a short time. When I awoke, I felt altogether happy and cheerful. No shadow of the former worry and uneasiness bothered me.
            The day was breaking. I quickly washed and left for the home of Munshi Mansur Masih. When I arrived there, I found he had been very worried because I had not come. He knew that I was accustomed to tea at that hour and already prepared some for me. After I finished my tea, we talked things over for a short time and then engaged in prayer. After prayer, we went to the home of Padre Ledgeard.
            The padre was surprised at hour early arrival. Munshi Mansur Masih proceeded to tell him that I had come to be baptised. At first, he thought we were not in earnest. But when he heard what had taken place on the preceding night, he immediately rose and embraced me, saying: “I knew that if you would read the Bible seriously you would surely become a Christian. Thank God that you have been convinced.” He then promised to baptise me three days later and advised me to memorise the Ten Commandments, and Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, during the interval. He further counselled me not to stay among Muslims. Upon his invitation to stay either with himself or with Munshi Mansur Masih, I decided to accept the second alternative.
            When Sunday came, the whole church was filled with Muslims. Seeing the danger, Mr. Ledgeard postponed my baptism. Finally, by the grace and mercy of God, I was baptised on August 6, 1903, in St. Paul’s Church, Bombay. My baptism took place in the presence of the following persons: Rev. Canon Ledgeard, who baptised me, Munshi Mansur Masih, and two other gentlemen, whose names I cannot now recall. Immediately after the ceremony, I was sent to Kanpur, since it was dangerous for me to remain in Bombay.
            When I became a Christian, a wonderful change took place in my life. My speech, actions, and whole manner of life were so transformed that a year later, when I visited Bombay for a short time, my Muslim friends wondered at it. They marvelled at my mildness, for they knew how easily I used to lose my temper.
            Before I became a Christian, I recognised sin to be sin, but I did not realise, as I do now, what a dangerous and destructive force it is. I am still merely a weak man and a handful of dust, and, when I sin, I cannot describe the shame and sorrow with which I am filled. Immediately, I fall on my face and, with tears, I repent and beg for forgiveness. This attitude can be acquired only by the recognition of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sin cannot be removed by repentance alone. It must be cleansed by the sacred blood of our Saviour. It is because of the very reason of sin that the world is daily approaching nearer and nearer to destruction.
            Though Satan may war against me with all the power at his disposal, I am not in the least disturbed because I believe that Christ has crushed his head. Satan cannot harm Christ’s faithful servants, nor can he prevail against them. May God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Searcher of hearts, turn the hearts of my Muslim brethren, as He turned mine, and give them vision, so that they too, remembering the Day of Judgement, may realise their deep spiritual need and come into the fold of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            I am, my dear Muslim brothers,
            Your spiritual well-wisher, Sultan Muhammed Paul


        “And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but DOES NOT PART THE HOOF, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” Leviticus 11:1-8

        And now compare this with:

        “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud BUT DO NOT PART THE HOOF, are unclean for you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. Deuteronomy 14:3-8

        Anyone having read the text in Deuteronomy 14 would be able to see that camels are listed among those animals that do not part the hoof. But since we are dealing with Osama we will quote some other translations in order to prevent him from making any excuses for his gross misreading of the texts:

        “Only, this ye do not eat, of those bringing up the cud, and of those dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit, for THEY are bringing up the cud but the hoof have not divided; unclean they [are] to you;” Deuteronomy 14:7 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

        “Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the coney; because THEY chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you.” ASV

        “Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, THEY DO NOT DIVIDE THE HOOF; they are unclean for you.” NASB

        “However, of those that chew the cud OR that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although THEY chew the cud, THEY do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.” NIV

        “Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for THEY chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.” KJV

        “Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you.” NKJV

        “Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because THEY chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.” RSV

        “Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because THEY chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.” NRSV

        But don’t eat camels, rabbits, and rock badgers. These animals chew the cud but do not have divided hoofs. You must treat them as unclean. Contemporary English Version (CEV)

        Osama’s whole triumphalistic claim of a Bible contradiction regarding camel hooves falls apart since he simply misread the text. He should have compared a couple of translations before confidently making misguided claims.

        As a last act of desperation Osama provides some photos which show several camel feet and claims that these pictures prove that camels have “a completely divided split hoof!” and therefore are permissible for food even according to the Bible. He obviously thinks that this proves that the Holy Bible is corrupted since in one place it says camels have split hooves, which his photos allegedly prove that they do, and yet in another place it says they don’t.

        Ironically, Osama’s own pictures prove our case and actually refute him. The pictures which he presented show that (1) the camel’s foot is not a hoof, and (2) it is not completely split. The second picture from the left shows that the two branches of the foot are joined at the rear. The pictures viewing the foot from above show that the foot is not really a hoof, but that the two branches look like toes with toenails.

        Yet let us assume for the following that camels’ feet can also be called hooves. Osama assumes that the ancient Israelites had the same understanding and definition of what a split hoof is as we moderns do today. Instead of imposing modern categories and definitions on ancient texts we should try and see how the ancients would have understood and used these terms. After all, it is much more reasonable to assume that something different is meant by divided then we mean today.

        Keep in mind that the Israelites would have seen camels and have looked at their feet. This is obvious from the geographic location, from the fact that trade routes passed through Israel, and from a considerable number of passages which mention camels, e.g.:

        “And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.” Genesis 12:16

        “Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor. And he made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at the time of evening, the time when women go out to draw water.” Genesis 24:10-11

        “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, “Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if you refuse to let them go and still hold them, behold, the hand of the LORD will fall with a very severe plague upon your livestock that are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks. But the LORD will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing of all that belongs to the people of Israel shall die.’”’” Exodus 9:1-4

        “And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the people of the East lay along the valley like locusts in abundance, and their camels were without number, as the sand that is on the seashore in abundance.” Judges 7:12

        “The whole assembly together was 42,360, besides their male and female servants, of whom there were 7,337, and they had 200 male and female singers. Their horses were 736, their mules were 245, their camels were 435, and their donkeys were 6,720.” Ezra 2:64-67

        Yet in spite of this the Israelites still classified them as having undivided hooves. That means that the Israelites’ classification on what constituted a divided hoof was based more than on the mere fact that the toes were divided.

        Furthermore, we must keep this in mind that the law gave to the Israelites the ability to determine clean and unclean in the context in which they lived, and since they did not at that time have the ability to engage in comparative internal anatomy through the use of modern scientific research, the law had to provide them with a means of identification fit to their circumstances. For example, in the case of the rabbit it appears to the sight to chew the cud, hence the description. In the same fashion, the camel’s hoof has a large sole that is cushioned and soft in contrast to those that have hard, clearly distinguished splits. The issue is observation, not taxonomy. As noted in one commentary:

        Animals that chew the cud but do not have a split hoof are excluded as food: e.g., the camel … the hyrax or rock-badger … the hare … and the pig … Although the camel has a split hoof, its sole is thick and cushiony so that the split does not appear (Baentsch, 35). Incidentally, the Arabs offered the camel as a sacrifice, and the camel was eaten throughout the Middle East; but because it was such a valuable animal, its meat was considered a luxury (Simoons, Eat Not This Flesh, 88). Some venerated parts of the camel are still employed as medicine and in magic. Other groups like the Israelites avoided eating the camel. The hyrax is mentioned here, for while it does not technically chew the cud, its manner of continuous chewing is quite similar to that of a ruminant… is often taken to be the rabbit or the hare, but Bare (Plants and Animals, 98) identifies it with the rock-badger or hyrax. It may reach a weight of six to eight pounds (Cansdale, Animals, 130). It likes to eat leaves, roots, and locusts… is the hare, which is larger than a rabbit and lives above ground. Cansdale (131) identifies the hare’s chewing the cud with its habit of “refection,” i.e., at certain times of the day it eats its moist droppings. The hare was considered by some as a holy animal; parts from its body were made into amulets. The pig … is also excluded for, even though it has a split hoof, it does not ruminate. A solid hoof excludes animals like the horse and the donkey. Other animals forbidden are the dog, the cat, and the bear (v 22). (Hartley, J. E. (1998). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.; bold and underline emphasis ours)

        Unlike cows, sheep goats and deer whose hooves are completely parted at the bottom to form two separate horny pads, the camel’s hooves have only partially split hooves. The camel has two toes on each foot, and the underside of the foot consists of a hard leathery elastic pad. When the camel places his foot on the ground, it spreads out which acts as a firm base from which to take the next step:

        The long, wooly coat varies in colour from dark brown to sandy beige. There is a mane and beard of long hair on the neck and throat, with hairs up to 25 cm / 10 in long. The shaggy winter coat is shed extremely rapidly, with huge sections peeling off at once, almost as if it were shorn off. There are two humps on the back, which are composed of fat (not water as sometimes thought). The face is long and somewhat triangular, with a split upper lip. There are long eyelashes, which, along with the sealable nostrils, help to keep out dust in the frequent sandstorms which occur. The two broad toes on each foot have undivided soles and are able to spread widely as an adaptation to walking on sand. (Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus); online source)

        Basically, we can conjecture from this that because the soles of a camel’s feet are undivided this meant it is not fully divided from the perspective of the ancient Israelites. That’s what mattered as a practical field guide to Israelites, not the dissection we find between the two toes.

        In fact, the phrase “divides not the hoof” in Leviticus 11:4 could be interpreted as meaning that camels do not have completely divided hooves:

        However, among the cud-chewing, hoofed animals, these are the ones that you may not eat: The camel shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof. (The Living Torah – A New Translation Based on Traditional Jewish Sources by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Translation)

        The word for divided is parac and is used in specific contexts to mean a tear or to break off:

        “Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?” Isaiah 58:7 NASB

        “No one shall break bread for the mourner, to comfort him for the dead, nor shall anyone give him the cup of consolation to drink for his father or his mother.” Jeremiah 16:7

        What this basically shows is that since the camels didn’t have completely parted hooves, and had large padded soles that were undivided, they didn’t fall under the Israelite classification of divided hooves. As stated in the notes to the Kaplan translation:

        does not have a true hoof
        (see Leviticus 11:3). The hooves of the camel are so reduced that they are like claws, and the padded soles support most of the weight. Some, however, understand the padded sole to be the ‘hoof’ here, and translate it, ‘does not have a cloven hoof’ (Rashi). (Source)

        Even Muslim scholars placed camels in the category of animals with undivided hooves. For example, here is what renowned Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir says about Sura 6:146:

        Foods that were Prohibited for the Jews Because of their Transgression

        Allah says, We forbade for the Jews every bird and animal with undivided hoof, such as THE CAMEL, ostrich, duck and goose. Allah said here …

        (and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep…) The Jews used to forbid these types of foods saying that Isra’il, or Ya`qub, used to forbid them for himself so they too forbid them. This was mentioned by As-Suddi. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that …

        (except what adheres to their backs) refers to the fat that clings to their backs. Allah said next …

        (or their Hawaya) that is, the entrails, according to Abu Ja`far bin Jarir. He also said, “The meaning here is, `And from ox and sheep, We forbade their fat for the Jews, except the fat on their backs and what the entrails carry.” `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that, Ibn `Abbas said that the, Hawaya, are the entrails. Similar was reported from Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr and Ad-Dahhak. (Source; underline and capital emphasis ours)

        It is obvious that these Muslims, in complete agreement with the ancient Israelites, did not view camels as having divided hooves. They apparently had a different classification and understanding of what exactly constituted a split hoof much like the Israelites. These scholars were evidently ignorant of Osama’s modern understanding and classification that he has desperately tried to impose on the biblical text in order to prove a contradiction.

        Finally, our response here is assuming, of course, that the camel’s split feet should be classified as hooves, something that not everyone agrees with. For instance, Webster’s New World Dictionary defines the camel as: either of two species of large, domesticated, cud-chewing mammals (genus Camelus) with a humped back, long neck, and large, cushioned feet.

        The following information on camels comes from the Encarta Encyclopedia (Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall’s Corporation):

        Camel, large ruminant native to the desert regions of Asia and northern Africa. There are two kinds of camels: the dromedary, or Arabian camel, which has one hump, and the Bactrian camel, which has two humps.

        Scientific classification: Camels belong to the family Camelidae. They make up the genus Camelus. The Arabian camel is classified as Camelus dromedarius, the Bactrian camel as Camelus bactrianus.

        Thick, broad sole pads and thick callosities on the joints of the legs and on the chest, upon which it rests in a kneeling position, enable it to withstand the heat of the desert sand.

        Notice that these authorities do not refer to the camel’s foot as a hoof or as divided. On the other hand, the same authority (Encarta) has the following to say about bovines, the genus to which cattle, sheep, goats, and deer belong:

        Bovidae (Latin boves, oxen), large family of cloven-hoofed ruminants that are characterized in the male, and usually also in the female, by the presence of unbranched, hollow horns that are never shed and continue to grow throughout life.

        Bovidae Bovinae, including bison and all wild and domestic cattle; Caprinae, including sheep and goats; Aepycerotinae, including the impala; Alcelaphinae, including the gnus, or wildebeest, and the hartebeest; Antilopinae, including the dama gazelle and other gazelles, black bucks, and saiga; Cephalophinae, including the duikers; Hippotraginae, including the oryx, addax, and blesbok; Peleinae, including the rhebok; and Reduncinae, including the kob, waterbuck, and puku. The Vu Quang ox belongs to the subfamily Bovinae and is classified as Pseudoryx nghetinhensis.

        As it stands there is no real contradiction with what is stated in the Hebrew Bible regarding camels, and there is definitely no “dog fight” going on here (Osama’s words). The only dog fight we find is the one between Osama, his god, and his prophet as he tries to desperately convince his readers that Muhammad wasn’t a false prophet. The problem he faces is that his god and his prophet stand in his way every time he seeks to prove his position due to the insurmountable problems they have caused for him and for every other Muslim.


            Is expulsion of non-Muslims from countries conquered by Islam a tenet of jihad?
            The question is important, for a whole chapter of the Koran is concerned with this very topic. Sûrah 59 of the Koran is entitled Hashr which in plain English means banishment. The sûrah refers to the expulsion of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nazir from Medina in early 625 AD. As mentioned earlier, the Jewish tribes of Medina were the first victims of early Islam’s plundering expeditions. Banu Kainuka was despoiled and banished in 624 AD. The next year (625 AD) saw the banishment of Banu Nazir. Banu Kuraizah was exterminated in 627 AD. These acts of spoliation and mass-slaughter are celebrated in the Hadis literature with unbounded pride and exultation.
            Sahih Muslim devotes a whole chapter to this topic. According to this work,
            The Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza fought against the Messenger of Allah who expelled Banu Nadir and allowed the Quraiza to stay on and granted favour to them until they too fought against him. Then he killed their men and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims. The Messenger of Allah turned out all the Jews of Medina – Banu Qainuqa and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina. (No. 4364).
            The same work cites another hadîs according to which the Prophet is supposed to have declared,
            “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims” (No. 4366).
            This practice of expelling non-Muslims gets added confirmation from the example of Umar, the second Caliph, who expelled the non-Medinese Jewish tribes of Khaibar on the strength of this very hadîs. The reader would remember that this tribe had been conquered in 628 AD, and the Prophet had spared their lives and habitations by compelling them to pay jizyah. Their subsequent expulsion during the rule of Umar is thus narrated by Gibbon:
            “Under the reign of Omar, the Jews of Chaibar were transplanted to Syria and the caliph alleged the injunction of his dying master, that one and the true religion should be professed in his native land of Arabia.”1
            It would thus seem that expulsion of non-Muslims from lands conquered by jihãd is sanctioned by both the Koran and the Sunnah. But I have not included this activity as an ingredient of jihãd as the Prophet never expelled idolaters from Arabia, nor does the Koran sanction this practice except as an act of retribution.
            “Drive them out of the places whence they drove you out,” says the Koran (2/191), and Muslims over the centuries have not been slow to point out, on the strength of this very verse, that jihãd does not mean aggression.
            This of course is nonsense. But the point of the above passage is simply this – the Koran does not expressly sanction expulsion of the generality of non-Muslims from Islamic countries except in special circumstances, and even Jews and Christians outside the limits of Arabia are absolved from any general ban. Also, the scriptural practice of jizyah would lose all meaning if any such general ban was ever intended.
            Nevertheless, the practice of expelling non-Muslims, sporadically if not systematically, has all along been a time-honored practice in all Islamic countries. Such expulsion should more properly be called “squeezing out”, as Muslims, wherever they reside in large numbers, are prone to squeeze out their non-Muslim neighbors by the sheer pressure of their numbers. Even such an arch-secularist as Mutafa Kemal started his secularist career only after a wholesale expulsion of the Greek population of Turkey. In fairness to Kemal, he did admit a proportionate number of Turks from mainland Greece. But no such plea can be held up in the case of the other Christian population of Turkey, which has gone on being squeezed out from the secularist regime over all these years, slowly but inexorably.
            Coming to the Indian subcontinent, Hindus started being squeezed out, right from 1947, from the erstwhile East Pakistan, now going by the name of Bangladesh. The process started simultaneously with the holocaust in Punjab where hundreds of thousands of Sikhs as well as mainstream Hindus were butchered in one clean sweep by the marauding mujãhids of the newly created state of Pakistan. It has been suggested that Bengali Muslims being of a gentler stock were incapable of such mass slaughter. This may be true to a certain extent, but the exodus of Hindus from East Bengal, sometimes in trickles and sometimes assuming the proportions of a flood, has been a spectacle no less heart-rending in the interminableness of its duration than the wholesale and instantaneous butchery of Punjab.
            In truth, it has been a tragedy of greater dimensions, showing at once the utter helplessness of the Bengali Hindus in their passive acceptance of their fate and the heartless unconcern of the Hindu-dominated secular state of India. Between them, these helpless Bengali Hindus and the callous Indian State have crowded out the basic feature of this long-drawn-out exodus. That the gentler Bengali Muslims, while flinching at outright mass-slaughter, have never shrunk from their jihadic practice of continuous plunder of Hindu property and consistent dishonor of Hindu women, making the said exodus inevitable, is a story which has remained practically unknown to the world at large.
            Indeed, the expulsion of non-Muslims from Islamic countries, while not a positive tenet of jihãd, has always remained an accessory to it. Not being a positive tenet it cannot from a part of any theoretical exposition of the doctrine of jihãd. But it has been a fact of Islamic history during the fourteen hundred years of Islam’s existence, and it is a poor testament to the historians of the world that not one of them has thought fit to chronicle this Islamic phenomenon in a systematic and chronological form, embracing the whole length and breadth of Islamdom.

            1Gibbon on Islam is not always a trustworthy chronicler. But the expulsion of the Jews of Khaibar, is attested by all historian of early Islam.

    • Dear MM/Raj, did you know that Jesus used to prostrate with his forehead touching the ground like a Muslim and pray to God???

      Matthew 26:39 (KJV)
      And he went a little farther, and FELL ON HIS FACE, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

      Jesus never said “this is my Will” but He always said the Will of God.

      Luke 9:18 He was alone praying to God.

      Luke 5:16 But he kept himself apart in the wilderness, and prayed to God.

      Luke 9:28 And went up into a mountain to pray to God.

      Does the Bible say that “this IS the WORD of God” anywhere?? Is the Bible God’s Word? How do you know that the Bible is God’s word? Does God himself say that this is my Word??

      Please assist me to tackle this very serious issue on which Christianity and Judaism are founded!! I went through the Bible and NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim to be God’s word!!!!!

      The Only verses I got was from 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1: 20-21
      “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
      But Paul’s personal letters known as Epistles are NOT inspiration of God! For an inspiration to be fulfilled the Inspirer has to have His Verbatim, correct? For example:
      A sunset inspires me to write my poems does NOT mean the Sunset writes my poems!

      Now refer to this : 1 Corinthians 7:12

      “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” Certainly that is NOT the Word of God, right?

      Also : 1 Corinthians 7:25

      “Now concerning virgins I have NO commandment of the Lord: yet I give MY judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”.

      And finally : 2 Corinthians 11:17

      “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”

      The above 3 verses from 1 and 2 Corinthians contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1: 20-21.

      • Lucky, being a vegetarian doesn’t mean you’re peaceful. That’s idiocy but we can’t expect anything else from your side. 😀



          Zoophilia, from the Greek Ζωον (zôon, “animal”) and φιλία (philia, “friendship” or “love”), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage and frequently but incorrectly seen as a synonym; often misspelled as “beastiality”), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoophilia — which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexual activity for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles are sexually interested in animals.
          Pakistan has banned content on more than a dozen websites because of “offensive” and “blasphemous” material, while they themselves rank No. 1 for certain sex-related search terms, including “child sex,” “rape sex,” “animal sex,” “camel sex,” “donkey sex,” “dog sex,” and “horse sex”.[1]


          From non-Islamic Abrahamic religious scriptures, it is easy to see that bestiality is considered immoral.
          “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

          Leviticus 18:23 NIV

          “Cursed is anyone who has sexual relations with any animal.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

          Deuteronomy 27:21 NIV

          There are other passages within the Torah/Old Testament which call for the death penalty to be inflicted. This is harsh but that does not concern us. What concerns us is the fact that non-Islamic Abrahamic religions strictly forbid sexual acts between humans and other species, and so do secular western laws in general. Therefore the claim that the West “allows men to have sex with animals” is proven to be false.


          Some may lump together homosexuality and bestiality as both constituting “sexual immorality”. However, there is a crucial difference between the two. A homosexual act takes place between two consenting adults, but an animal cannot give its consent.
          In this sense, bestiality is akin to pedophilia, something which Islam unashamedly permits. Indeed bestiality is viewed by many in the West as animal abuse.
          Interestingly, one study has found that children who have been subjected to sexual abuse are more likely than non-abused children to partake in bestiality.
          Although it is difficult to obtain information about sexual behavior in children and adolescents, especially sexual behavior with animals, Friedrich (1997) provided some information on this issue with data from his Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (CSBI).
          Caregivers of 1,114 children ages 2–12 who had not been abused and caregivers of 512 sexually abused children in the same age range reported on a variety of sexual or sexualized behaviors in the children, including whether the child “touches animals’ sex parts.” (Note: The reporting caregivers of the sexually abused children were not the perpetrators of the abuse.) The children were divided into three age groups: ages 2–5, 6–9, and 10–12. The queried behavior was relatively infrequent, but it was clear that in the two older groups, sexually abused children were more likely to display the behavior than nonabused children.

          Although the behavior appears to decline among sexually abused 10- to 12-year-olds, one might speculate that the decrease is accounted for, in part, by a greater secretiveness in older children in acting out sexually with animals. The decrease may also be related to older children’s transferring their inappropriate sexual activity from animal to human victims.

          Further evidence for the relation between sexual abuse victimization and bestiality is provided by Wherry and colleagues (1995). They administered the CSBI to caretakers of 24 boys ages 6–12 who were psychiatric inpatients. Eight of these boys had been sexually abused. “Touches animals’ sex parts” was reported for 50 percent of abused boys but none of nonabused boys (p<0.01).
          Bestiality and Abuse in the 21st Century
          The NPOAA Review


          In a society where homosexuals and adulterers are stoned to death for "sexual immorality" you would expect a similar outcome for someone caught having sex with an animal. Surprisingly this is not the case.
          An Afghan soldier was detained by police after being caught having sex with a donkey in southeastern Afghanistan, a police officer told AFP.
          The soldier was discovered with the donkey in an abandoned house in a small village of Gardez, the capital of Paktia province, last week, a local police officer said.
          "He was caught in the act by a small boy who immediately told police about what he had seen and police arrested him in action," the Gardez-based officer told AFP, requesting anonymity.
          The soldier claimed he committed the act because he did not have enough money to get married.
          After being caught with the donkey in a village about 100km south of the capital Kabul, he was jailed for four days and then released without charge.
          According to tradition in south and southeastern Afghanistan, a suitor must pay around $US5,000 ($A6,800) to the parents of the girl he wishes to marry.
          Soldier caught with his pants down
          The Age, March 16, 2004
          Could it be that the soldier was released without charge because there is nothing in the Qur'an that prohibits bestiality?


          In 1923, the Director of Health in the British Mandate government in Palestine sent out a questionnaire to his Principal Medical and Health Officers in the country, asking them to report on various sexual practices and attitudes among the Muslim Arab population.
          As a result, the British discovered that the Muslim Arabs engaged in bestiality.
          The Nablus officer finds sodomy and “similar vices” “not uncommon in some of the towns but less so in the villages where…bestiality is by no mean unknown” and “immorality…rather lightly regarded” in those villages that are closer to the larger towns. He comments, “in the villages there seems to be curiously little feeling against bestiality which I have heard admitted in a very airy way on more than one occasion. Sodomy is considered disgraceful but not I think more so than ordinary immorality” (III).
          "Unnatural Vices" or Unnatural Rule? The Case of a Sex Questionnaire and the British Mandate
          Ellen L. Fleischmann, Jerusalem Quarterly File, Issue 10, 2000


          In Southern Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Balochistan, sex with animals is a common practice among rural youths and considered a rite of passage into adulthood.
          In southern Punjab, much of NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan sodomy and bestiality are common among rural youths. In fact, he caught two boys trying to rape a goat in the vicinity of the mazar of Hazrat Sultan Bahu. The punishment meted out to them was 10 blows with a chhittar (shoe) each on their butts. They protested however that in many rural areas having sex with an animal was considered a rite of passage on the way to becoming full members of the male society!
          Desegregation of the sexes and promiscuity
          Ishtiaq Ahmed (associate professor of political science at Stockholm University), Daily Times, June 27, 2006


          In June 2011, a male who was caught having sex with another man's donkey was fined Rs 50,000. This fine was not imposed for having sex with an animal, but for committing adultery. The raped donkey was labelled a 'kari' (an adultress) and eventually honor killed by its owner.

          Incredible though it may sound, a donkey was declared ‘Kari’ and shot dead here in a remote area on Monday. The Jirga imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the alleged ‘Karo’.
          The reports said that in Village Ghahi Khan Jatoi, a villager Ghazi Khan alias Malang shot dead his donkey on being ‘Kari’ with Sikandar Ali alias Deedo. He attempted to kill Sikander too but the alleged Karo managed to escape and surrendered himself to an influential person of the area.

          Sources said the influential person summoned both the parties and imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the Karo. They said Sikander and his family were forced to pay Rs 50,000 on the spot and the remaining amount in two installments.
          The sources added that the alleged Karo pleaded innocence at the Jirga, but the Jirga members paid no attention to it. Sikander’s family said he paid Rs 50,000 to save his life otherwise he would have been killed.
          Donkey declared ‘Kari’ killed
          The News International, July 19, 2011

          Pakistan ranks number 1 for such varied search terms as "child sex," "rape sex," "animal sex," "camel sex," "donkey sex," "dog sex," and "horse sex".

          The Muslim country, which has banned content on at least 17 websites to block offensive and blasphemous material, is the world's leader in online searches for pornographic material
          . . .
          Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content.
          Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for "horse sex" since 2004, "donkey sex" since 2007, "rape pictures" between 2004 and 2009, "rape sex" since 2004, "child sex" between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, "animal sex" since 2004 and "dog sex" since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.
          The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for "sex," "camel sex," "rape video," "child sex video" and some other searches that can't be printed here.
          No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan
          Kelli Morgan, Fox News, July 13, 2010


          Pakistani Muslims are not alone in their search for porn.
          Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries – searching for sex-related sites – six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.
          Pakistan most sex-starved
          Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, May 17, 2006
          Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:[8]
          Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
          Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
          Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
          Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
          Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
          Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
          Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
          Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
          Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
          Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
          Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
          Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
          Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)

          MIDDLE EAST

          Bestiality is common among boys of tribal Arab cultures.
          Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, "Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys." Havelock-Ellis [note 52] states "The Arabs, according to Kocher, chiefly practice bestiality with goats, sheep and mares. The Annamites, according to Mondiere, commonly employ sows and (more especially the young women) dogs."

          Historical And Cultural Perspectives On Zoophilia

          Serving History

          There is also a certain saying which remains popular among the Arabs:

          The Arabs have never taken quite so condemnatory an attitude towards the practice, and indeed a popular Arab saying had it that

          "The pilgrimage to Mecca is not complete without copulating with the camel."[9]


          In February 2006, a man caught having sex with a neighbor's goat was not punished, but ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbor a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal because he "used it as his wife".
          A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.
          The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
          They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
          "We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.
          Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
          BBC News, February 24,2006

          Morocco is an Islamic country, with 98.7% of the population Muslims.[10] The following is taken from a paper on sexuality in Morocco written by Nadia Kadiri, M.D., and Abderrazak Moussaïd, M.D., with Abdelkrim Tirraf, M.D., and Abdallah Jadid, M.D. Translated by Raymond J. Noonan, Ph.D., and Sandra Almeida.[11]
          In the rural world, zoophilia is still very widespread and not blameworthy. With masturbation, it constitutes an obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality.

          The operative phrase is ‘obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality’. Obligatory. It means in rural Morocco, Muslim males must have sexual intercourse with animals as part of their sexual apprenticeship.
          Also according to the scholars Allen Edwardes and Robert Masters, Ph.D, FAACS, the Muslims of Morocco believe that sexual intercourse with donkeys "make the penis grow big and strong" and masturbation is often scorned by them in favor of bestiality.[12]


          The above paper also says "it is prohibited without question by the Shariâ". But is this alleged prohibition within the Shari'ah extracted (as it must be) from the Qur'an and Hadith, or has this fiqh been derived using external non-Islamic sources?


          In contrast with what secular and non-Islamic religious sources say about bestiality, this is what the Qur'an has to say on the subject:
          That's right – absolutely, positively nothing. Unlike the Qur'an's clear-cut rulings on the morality of homosexuality, Polygamy, rape, and pedophilia, the permissibility of bestiality seems to have been left open to ‘interpretation.’
          If Islamic teachings were truly opposed to such a practice, then this omission is somewhat surprising when you consider that, historically, bestiality was indigenously accepted in the Middle-East.[13]


          There is no prohibition against bestiality to be found within the two Sahihs. The following hadith is taken from the Sunnah Abu-Dawud collection, not Bukari or Muslim.
          Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
          Abu Dawud 38:4449
          Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? And it is. Just look at the very next hadith.
          Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
          Abu Dawud 38:4450
          This is a very clear contradiction. How can one hadith say kill the person committing bestiality, and the very next one say there is no prescribed punishment for the same person? Both statements cannot be true.
          What's worse; these two contradictory hadiths (transmitted through different isnad) have been attributed to the same person. Abu Dawud himself had said the former of the two hadith is "not strong" and the latter further "weakens" it.[14]
          From the above, we can gather that Robert Masters had correctly stated, "bestiality was not specifically prohibited by the Prophet,"[9] so there is little wonder that Islamists generally shy away from mentioning Abu Dawud 38:4449 in their pronouncements on bestiality.


          As we have previously mentioned, there is no prohibition against bestiality to be found within the two Sahihs (Authentic). However there does exist a certain hadith and commentary by the renowned Islamic scholar al-Nawawi, which is of interest.
          The following narration does not exist in the English translations of Sahih Muslim, but a similar (but sanitized version) appears in: Sahih Muslim 3:684
          و حدثني ‏ ‏زهير بن حرب ‏ ‏وأبو غسان المسمعي ‏ ‏ح ‏ ‏و حدثناه ‏ ‏محمد بن المثنى ‏ ‏وابن بشار ‏ ‏قالوا حدثنا ‏ ‏معاذ بن هشام ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أبي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏قتادة ‏ ‏ومطر ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الحسن ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي رافع ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏أن نبي الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏إذا جلس بين ‏ ‏شعبها ‏ ‏الأربع ثم جهدها فقد وجب عليه الغسل ‏
          ‏وفي حديث ‏ ‏مطر ‏ ‏وإن لم ينزل ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏زهير ‏ ‏من بينهم بين ‏ ‏أشعبها ‏ ‏الأربع ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن عمرو بن عباد بن جبلة ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن أبي عدي ‏ ‏ح ‏ ‏و حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن المثنى ‏ ‏حدثني ‏ ‏وهب بن جرير ‏ ‏كلاهما ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏قتادة ‏ ‏بهذا الإسناد ‏ ‏مثله غير أن في حديث ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏ثم اجتهد ولم يقل وإن لم ينزل ‏
          Narrated by Zuhair Ibn Harb, narrated by Ghasan Al-Masma’i, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Al-Mathny, narrated by Ibn Bashar, who said that it was narrated by Muath Ibn Hisham, narrated by Abu Qatada, narrated by Mattar, narrated by Al-Hassan, narrated by Abu Rab’i, narrated by Abu Huraira who said:
          "The prophet – peace be upon him – said, ‘If one sits between a woman’s four parts (shu’biha Al-arba’) and then fatigues her, then it necessitates that he wash.’
          In the hadith of Mattar it is added ‘even if he does not ejaculate (yunzil).’ Zuhair narrated among them using the phrase ‘Ashba’iha Al-arba’. It was also narrated by Muhammad Ibn Umar Ibn Ibad Ibn Jablah, narrated Muhammad Ibn Abi Uday, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Al-Mathny, narrated by Wahb Ibn Jarir who both related from Shu’bah who narrated from Qatada who gave this same chain of transmission, except that in the hadith of Shu’bah it has the phrase ‘then he labored’ but did not have the phrase ‘even if he does not ejaculate.’
          Sahih Muslim – Book of Menstruation – hadith #525
          IMAM AL-NAWAWI (1234 – 1278 AD)
          Below is a short bio of al-Nawawi, whose commentary of Sahih Muslim is second only to Ibn Hajar's commentary of Sahih Bukhari.[15]
          Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi was born in the village of Nawa in Southern Syria, Nawawi spent most of his life in Damascus where he lived in a simple manner, devoted to Allah, engaging single-mindedly in worship, study, writing and teaching various Islamic sciences. The life of this world seems scarcely to have impinged upon him. He was a versatile and extremely dedicated scholar whose breadth of learning was matched by its depth.
          Imam Nawawi died at the young age of 44 years, leaving behind him numerous works of great importance, the most famous of these being:
          • al-Arba'un Nabawi (An-Nawawis Forty Hadith)
          • Riyadhus saleheen
          • al-Maqasid (Al-Nawawi's Manual of Islam).
          • Kitab al-Adhkar,
          • Minhaj al-Talibin (a main reference for Shafi'i fiqh)
          • Shar' Sahih Muslim (he was the first to arrange the sahih of Muslim in the now familiar categories)
          Although best known for his works in hadith, Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (d. 676/1277) was also the Imam of the later Shafi'i school of Jurisprudence, and widely acknowledged as the intellectual heir to Imam Shafi’i. He was a renowned scholar and jurist who dedicated his life to the pursuit of Islamic learning.
          About Imam al-Nawawi
          صحيح مسلم بشرح النووي ‏ ‏قَوْله : ( أَبُو غَسَّان الْمِسْمَعِيّ ) ‏ ‏هُوَ بِفَتْحِ الْغَيْن الْمُعْجَمَة وَتَشْدِيد السِّين الْمُهْمَلَة , وَيَجُوز صَرْفه وَتَرْكُ صَرْفه . وَالْمِسْمَعِيّ بِكَسْرِ الْمِيم الْأُولَى وَفَتْح الثَّانِي , وَاسْمه مَالِك بْن عَبْد الْوَاحِد , وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ بَيَانه مَرَّات , لَكِنِّي أُنَبِّه عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى مِثْله لِطُولِ الْعَهْد بِهِ , كَمَا شَرَطْتهُ فِي الْخُطْبَة . ‏
          ‏قَوْله : ( أَبُو رَافِع عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَة ) ‏ ‏اِسْم أَبِي رَافِع : ( نُفَيْع ) وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ أَيْضًا . ‏ ‏قَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( إِذَا قَعَدَ بَيْن شُعَبهَا الْأَرْبَع ثُمَّ جَهَدهَا ) ‏ ‏وَفِي رِوَايَة ( أَشْعُبهَا ) اِخْتَلَفَ الْعُلَمَاء فِي الْمُرَاد بِالشُّعَبِ الْأَرْبَع , فَقِيلَ : هِيَ الْيَدَانِ وَالرِّجْلَانِ , وَقِيلَ : الرِّجْلَانِ وَالْفَخِذَانِ , وَقِيلَ : الرِّجْلَانِ وَالشَّفْرَانِ , وَاخْتَارَ الْقَاضِي عِيَاض أَنَّ الْمُرَاد شُعَب الْفَرْج الْأَرْبَع , وَالشُّعَب النَّوَاحِي وَاحِدَتهَا شُعْبَة , وَأَمَّا مَنْ قَالَ : ( أَشْعُبِهَا ) , فَهُوَ جَمْع شُعَب . وَمَعْنَى ( جَهَدَهَا ) حَفَرَهَا كَذَا قَالَهُ الْخَطَّابِيُّ وَقَالَ غَيْره : بَلَغَ مَشَقَّتهَا , يُقَال : جَهِدْته وَأَجْهَدْته بَلَغْت مَشَقَّته , قَالَ الْقَاضِي عِيَاض رَحِمَهُ اللَّه تَعَالَى : الْأَوْلَى أَنْ يَكُون جَهَدَهَا بِمَعْنَى بَلَغَ جَهْده فِي الْعَمَل فِيهَا , وَالْجَهْد الطَّاقَة , وَهُوَ إِشَارَة إِلَى الْحَرَكَة وَتَمَكُّن صُورَة الْعَمَل , وَهُوَ نَحْو قَوْله مِنْ حَفَرَهَا أَيْ كَدّهَا بِحَرَكَتِهِ . وَإِلَّا فَأَيّ مَشَقَّة بَلَغَ بِهَا فِي ذَلِكَ . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم . وَمَعْنَى الْحَدِيث أَنَّ إِيجَاب الْغُسْل لَا يَتَوَقَّف عَلَى نُزُول الْمَنِيّ بَلْ مَتَى غَابَتْ الْحَشَفَة فِي الْفَرْج وَجَبَ الْغُسْل عَلَى الرَّجُل وَالْمَرْأَة , وَهَذَا لَا خِلَاف فِيهِ الْيَوْم , وَقَدْ كَانَ فِيهِ خِلَاف لِبَعْضِ الصَّحَابَة وَمَنْ بَعْدهمْ , ثُمَّ اِنْعَقَدَ الْإِجْمَاع عَلَى مَا ذَكَرْنَاهُ , وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ بَيَان هَذَا . قَالَ أَصْحَابنَا : وَلَوْ غَيَّبَ الْحَشَفَة فِي دُبُر اِمْرَأَة , أَوْ دُبُر رَجُل , أَوْ فَرْج بَهِيمَة , أَوْ دُبُرهَا , وَجَبَ الْغُسْل سَوَاء كَانَ الْمَوْلَج فِيهِ حَيًّا أَوْ مَيِّتًا , صَغِيرًا أَوْ كَبِيرًا , وَسَوَاء كَانَ ذَلِكَ عَنْ قَصْد أَمْ عَنْ نِسْيَان , وَسَوَاء كَانَ مُخْتَارًا أَوْ مُكْرَهًا , أَوْ اسْتَدْخَلَت الْمَرْأَة ذَكَرَهُ وَهُوَ نَائِم , وَسَوَاء اِنْتَشَرَ الذَّكَر أَمْ لَا , وَسَوَاء كَانَ مَخْتُونًا أَمْ أَغْلَف , فَيَجِب الْغُسْل فِي كُلّ هَذِهِ الصُّوَر عَلَى الْفَاعِل وَالْمَفْعُول بِهِ إِلَّا إِذَا كَانَ الْفَاعِل أَوْ الْمَفْعُول بِهِ صَبِيًّا أَوْ صَبِيَّة فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُقَال وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مُكَلَّفًا , وَلَكِنْ يُقَال صَارَ جُنُبًا فَإِنْ كَانَ مُمَيِّزًا وَجَبَ عَلَى الْوَلِيّ أَنْ يَأْمُرهُ بِالْغُسْلِ كَمَا يَأْمُرهُ بِالْوُضُوءِ , فَإِنْ صَلَّى مِنْ غَيْر غُسْلٍ لَمْ تَصِحّ صَلَاته , وَإِنْ لَمْ يَغْتَسِل حَتَّى بَلَغَ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ الْغُسْل , وَإِنْ اِغْتَسَلَ فِي الصِّبَى ثُمَّ بَلَغَ لَمْ يَلْزَمهُ إِعَادَة الْغُسْل . قَالَ أَصْحَابنَا : وَالِاعْتِبَار فِي الْجِمَاع بِتَغْيِيبِ الْحَشَفَة مِنْ صَحِيح الذَّكَر بِالِاتِّفَاقِ , فَإِذَا غَيَّبَهَا بِكَمَالِهَا تَعَلَّقَتْ بِهِ جَمِيع الْأَحْكَام , وَلَا يُشْتَرَط تَغْيِيب جَمِيع الذَّكَر بِالِاتِّفَاقِ . وَلَوْ غَيَّبَ بَعْض الْحَشَفَة لَا يَتَعَلَّق بِهِ شَيْء مِنْ الْأَحْكَام بِالِاتِّفَاقِ إِلَّا وَجْهًا شَاذًّا ذَكَرَهُ بَعْض أَصْحَابنَا أَنَّ حُكْمه حُكْم جَمِيعهَا , وَهَذَا الْوَجْه غَلَط مُنْكَر مَتْرُوك , وَأَمَّا إِذَا كَانَ الذَّكَر مَقْطُوعًا فَإِنْ بَقِيَ مِنْهُ دُون الْحَشَفَة لَمْ يَتَعَلَّق بِهِ شَيْء مِنْ الْأَحْكَام , وَإِنْ كَانَ الْبَاقِي قَدْر الْحَشَفَة فَحَسْب تَعَلَّقَتْ الْأَحْكَام بِتَغْيِيبِهِ بِكَمَالِهِ , وَإِنْ كَانَ زَائِدًا عَلَى قَدْر الْحَشَفَة فَفِيهِ وَجْهَانِ مَشْهُورَانِ لِأَصْحَابِنَا أَصَحّهمَا أَنَّ الْأَحْكَام تَتَعَلَّق بِقَدْرِ الْحَشَفَة مِنْهُ , وَالثَّانِي لَا يَتَعَلَّق شَيْء مِنْ الْأَحْكَام إِلَّا بِتَغْيِيبِ جَمِيع الْبَاقِي . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم . ‏ ‏وَلَوْ لَفَّ عَلَى ذَكَرِهِ خِرْقَة وَأَوْلَجَهُ فِي فَرْج اِمْرَأَة فَفِيهِ ثَلَاثَة أَوْجُه لِأَصْحَابِنَا مِنْهَا وَالْمَشْهُور أَنَّهُ يَجِب عَلَيْهِمَا الْغُسْل , وَالثَّانِي لَا يَجِب لِأَنَّهُ أَوْلَجَ فِي خِرْقَة , وَالثَّالِث إِنْ كَانَتْ الْخِرْقَة غَلِيظَة تَمْنَع وُصُول اللَّذَّة وَالرُّطُوبَة لَمْ يَجِب الْغُسْل . وَإِلَّا وَجَبَ . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم . ‏ ‏وَلَوْ اسْتَدْخَلَت الْمَرْأَة ذَكَرَ بَهِيمَة وَجَبَ عَلَيْهَا الْغُسْل , وَلَوْ اسْتَدْخَلَت ذَكَرًا مَقْطُوعًا فَوَجْهَانِ أَصَحّهمَا يَجِب عَلَيْهَا الْغُسْل
          Commentary of Imam Al-Nawawi on the Hadith
          The saying of the prophet – peace be upon him- ‘When he sits between her fours parts) mostly its a home animal (shu’biha Al-arba) and has intercourse with her then fatigues her’
          In another narration the word ‘Ashu’biha’ is used. The scholars have disagreed about the intended meaning of ‘shu’biha Al-arba’ (the fours) for some said that it means the arms and the legs, while others have said that it refers to the legs and thighs, and other said it means the legs and the edge of the pubic area. Al-Qadi Ayad chose the meaning of the four areas surrounding the vagina. The word (Shu’b) means areas, its singular form being (Shu’bah). As for those who say (Ashba’iha) that is the plural of the word (Shu’b).
          The word Aj-hada-ha (fatigue her) means to plow her, which was also stated by Al-Khatabi. Others have said it means to make her reach exhaustion as in the phrase ‘she made him toil and labor till he was exhausted’. Al-Qadi Ayad – may Allah rest his soul- said ‘Primarily, the word (Jahada’ha) means that the man exerted his effort working in a woman, where the word (Juh’d) means energy and refers to motion by describing the type of work. This is similar to his (the prophet) saying ‘he who plowed her’ meaning he who penetrated her by his motion. Otherwise, what other fatigue could a man experience because of her, and Allah knows best.
          The meaning of the hadith is that the necessity to wash is not limited to when semen is ejaculated, rather it is when the penile head (Hash-fa, lit. “the head of the male member,” i.e. head of the penis) penetrates the vagina, then it is necessary for the man and the woman to wash. There is no disagreement on this today, even though there was disagreement on this by some of the early companions and others later. However, an agreement was later reached and this is what we have shown and presented previously.
          Our companions have said that if the penile head has penetrated a woman's anus, or a man's anus, or an animal's vagina or its anus then it is necessary to wash whether the one being penetrated is alive or dead, young or old, whether it was done intentionally or absentmindedly, whether it was done willfully or forcefully.
          This also applies if the woman places the male member inside her while the man is asleep, whether the penis is erect or not, whether the penis is circumcised or uncircumcised. All these situations require that the person committing the act and the one the act is committed on must wash themselves, unless the person committing the act or the person the act is committed on is a young male or female. In that case it cannot be said that the person must wash, for they do not have the responsibility, rather it is said that this person is in a state of impurity. If that person can discern (the sexual act) then his guardian can command him to wash just as he commands him to perform the ablution washing for prayers. For if he prays without washing, his prayer has not been performed correctly; likewise if he doesn’t wash after he reaches puberty he must be forced to wash. If he washed as a youth and then reaches puberty, then he does not have to repeat the washing.
          Our companions have said that intercourse occurs when a healthy male’s penile head completely penetrates (an orifice), as has been unanimously agreed. Thus, when the penile head has completely disappeared (inside the orifice), then all the regulations concerning washing apply. It is unanimously agreed that it is not necessary that the entire penile shaft penetrate to apply the regulations of washing. If part of the penile head penetrates, then the regulations of washing are not imposed as is agreed, except by an odd few of our companions who said that even in this case all the regulations of washing apply. However, this opinion is wrong, rejected and abandoned. If the male member was severed and what remained was less than the length of the penile head, then none of the washing regulations apply. If the part remaining was equal in length to the penile head length then that part must completely penetrate for the regulation of washing to apply. If the part remaining was greater in length to the penile head length then there are two famous opinions for our companions. The most correct is that if the portion that penetrates is equal to the length of the penile head, then the regulations for washing apply. The other opinion is that none of the regulations for washing apply until the entire remaining length of the penile shaft completely penetrates and Allah knows best.
          If a man wraps a sheath around his male member and then ejaculates inside a woman’s vagina, then there are three opinions from our companions. The most famous is that the man must wash. The second is that he does not have to wash because he ejaculated inside the sheath. The third is that if the sheath is thick and prevents climax and wetness (in the vagina) then washing is not necessary, otherwise it is necessary and Allah knows best.
          If a woman inserts (in her vagina) an animal's penis she must wash, and if she inserts a detached penis (thakaran maktu-an, lit. “a severed male member”) there are two opinions; the most correct is that she must wash.
          Sahih Muslim – Book of Menstruation – hadith #525 – Commentary
          Some Sunni Islamic scholars have ruled that bestiality does not invalidate the hajj or ones fast.
          ولو وطئ بهيمة لا يفسد حجه

          "If he had sexual intercourse with an animal, that will not make his hajj void"
          Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H), Badaye al-Sanae, Vol. 2, p. 216
          "Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one's fast provided ejaculation does not occur"
          Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan, Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820
          Others have said it is halal.
          لقد كانت نكاح الحيوانات قبل البعثه منتشره وتروى كثير من الروايات انها حلال لكنها مكروه والاحوط وجوبا ترك هذه العاده التي تسبب الأذى النفسي ويجب عليك الاعتراف لصاحب الاغنام ودفع قيمتها لمالكها

          Sex with animals before the mission (Islam) was wide spread and many narrations are narrated that it is halal but makrooh (disliked). And on the compulsory precaution one should abandon this practice that may cause self harm. And you must admit this to the owner of the sheep and pay the owner.
          Sex with animals Fatwa
          al-Uzma Seyyid Ali al-Sistani
          From all of the above, we can certainly see that, unlike the West, Islamic societies do not universally harbor negative attitudes towards bestiality. Many Muslims seek out gratification or are indifferent to this perversion, and in some cases it is even openly promoted and made obligatory.
          This is all in stark contrast with their attitudes towards homosexuality and their allowance of pedophilia. Therefore to claim that the West without the guidance of Islam has allowed bestiality is not only false, but hypocritical when you consider that this perversion, alongside pedophilia, is left largely unhindered by the Islamic clerisy in their societies and runs rampant among followers of Islam.
          Aside from their own embarrassment, we can also see that there is little basis for any Shari'ah prohibition of bestiality/zoophilia as the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari and Muslim) do not prohibit this unnatural practice, furthermore the references we have examined outside of the two Sahihs are considered weak.
          1. ↑ Kelli Morgan – No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan – Fox News, July 13, 2010
          2. ↑ Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
          3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Bestiality –
          4. ↑ Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009
          5. ↑ Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
          6. ↑ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
          7. ↑ Rebecca F. Wisch – Overview of State Bestiality Laws – Animal Legal & Historical Center, 2008 (updated 2010)
          8. ↑ Watcher – Pakistan: Muslims Are Sex-Starved Surfers, With Bestial Interests – Eye On The World, May 18, 2006
          9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Robert E.L. Masters – Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality – The Julian Press, 1st edition 1966,
          10. ↑ Africa :: Morocco – The online Factbook
          11. ↑ Read the full text here.
          12. ↑ Allen Edwardes and R.E.L. Masters – Cradle of Erotica (pp. 223-224) – Bantam Paperback; New Ed edition (1977), ISBN 0553103016
          13. ↑ Judith Worell – Encyclopedia of women and gender: Volume 1 (p. 298) – Academic Press; 1 edition, September 27, 2001, ISBN 9780122272455
          14. ↑ Dr. Ahmad Shafaat – Ahadith About Rajm – Islamic Perspectives, March 6, 2005
          15. ↑ ON TASAWWUF Imam Nawawi (d. 676) –


          Islamic Taliban Renews Their Vow to Murder Malala Yousafzai

          Malala addressed the United Nations in July on her 16th birthday.
          The Pakistani Taliban says it is committed to murdering Malala Yousafzai, the schoolgirl who was shot by one of its fighters.

          Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai was shot last year by the Taliban for campaigning for defying a ban on female education – and now the group is threatening to kill her again.
          Pakistani Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid said the group stands by its decision to target 16-year-old Malala who he said has “targeted and criticised Islam”.
          “She accepted that she attacked Islam so we we tried to kill her, and if we get another chance we will definitely kill her and that will make us feel proud. Islam prohibits killing women, but except those that support the infidels in their war against our religion,” he added.
          The new death threat came as Malala was named among the favourites to win the Nobel Peace Prize, which will be revealed on Friday.
          The announcement is the latest in a series of impressive accolades for Malala’s campaign for girls’ schooling.
          During an interview with the BBC’s Panorama, Malala said that winning the prize would be “a great opportunity” but that universal education remained her true goal.
          “If I win Nobel Peace Prize, it would be a great opportunity for me, but if I don’t get it, it’s not important because my goal is not to get Nobel Peace Prize, my goal is to get peace and my goal is to see the education of every child,” she said.
          Malala now lives in the UK with her family but told of her plans to return to Pakistan when she had received a full education and was “fully empowered”.
          She described the Taliban’s rule of fear which had led her to speak out in the first place.
          “The Taliban’s punishments were like slaughtering people on the Green Chowk (the main square in Malala’s home town of Mingora), throwing acid on women’s faces or abusing them or killing them.
          “I was afraid of my future. And at that time there was fear all around us, in every street and in every square of Mingora.”
          On Tuesday, Malala will publish her autobiography entitled I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up For Education And Was Shot By The Taliban.

          Malala’s first thought was “Thank God I’m not dead” as she woke up terrified in a UK hospital after a Taliban gunman shot her in the head, according to extracts from the book published in the Sunday Times.
          The schoolgirl added that she was unable to talk, had no idea where she was and was unsure even of her own name when she emerged from a coma after six days.
          The last thing she recalled on October 9, 2012, the day she was shot, was sitting with her friends on a bus as it rounded an army checkpoint on the way to school in the Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan.
          Friends told her that a masked gunman boarded the bus asked “Who is Malala?” and then lifted a gun to her head and fired.
          Seriously wounded, Malala was flown to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham for surgery on her skull and ear. She returned to school last March in the UK after recovering from her injuries.
          Malala attracted the anger of the Taliban by writing a blog for the BBC Urdu service chronicling the challenges of daily life under the Islamists.
          After the shooting and her move to Britain that she gained widespread adulation in the West, but remained the subject of suspicion among many conservatives in Swat.
          Maulana Gul Naseeb, a prominent figure in the JUI-F, one of Pakistan’s leading religious political parties, said: “America created Malala in order to promote their own culture of nudity and to defame Pakistan around the world.”
          Meanwhile, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said Malala has been invited to a palace reception promoting education in Commonwealth hosted by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh on Friday, October 18.
          It is thought the Queen was impressed by the teenager’s bravery.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s