India: TV actress raped by Islamic Pir

rr eeimages

Representational Image

[TOI] In what seems like a story out of a crime-based TV soap, a 27-year-old TV actress was conned and raped by a tantrik with the promise of a MHADA flat.

The young actress wanted to win a flat in the MHADA lottery in Mumbai and approached a self-styled godman. The tantrik not only asked her to pay him money but also allegedly asked her to perform sexual acts with him. According to a Mid-Day report, the actress was conned of Rs 26 lakh and raped by him.

The victim is an actress of a popular television soap. She wanted to win a flat in the much-awaited MHADA lottery. She had previously applied for MHADA lucky draws several times, but never won it. Losing all hope, she approached the tantrik for help.

The Mid-Day report adds that the tantrik, named Ismail Azim Khan, went to her residence and in the garb of performing a pooja, he asked her to have sex with him. He also asked her to offer Rs 26 lakh as an offering to appease God so that she wins the lottery. After getting the cash and raping the actress, the tantrik fled her house with the cash.

Following the woman’s complaint, the police have arrested the tantrik. However, his accomplice is still on the run.

28 thoughts on “India: TV actress raped by Islamic Pir

      • Shall we look at this BALL?

        Acts 5:31-32 (KJV) :

        31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

        God EXALTED Jesus with HIS right HAND! Why NOT left hand?

        To be a Prince and NOT God!

        Saviour, for to give repentance ONLY to Israel!

      • Let us look at this BULL in the Bible :

        Mark 16:16 (KJV)
        16 He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


        Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
        8 For by GRACE are ye SAVED through FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

        Jesus says, YOU should be BAPTIZED to be SAVED but Paul defies and says it is ONLY by GRACE that YOU are SAVED!

        A person to become a Christian, WHO should he FOLLOW…Jesus or PAUL??

      • @plum the MC scum

        “Rape of Iraqi women by US forces :
        Look at the pictures and you will be shocked!

        people are actually happy…to see that Muslims are getting a taste of their own medicine.

        in above comment you called the rape victim a prostitute…why?

        Muslims don’t respect non-Muslims women so why Muslim bit**es should get any?

        what u sow is what you reap….enjoy the pics more will come because Muslims are doing such things to others for the last 1400 years.

      • TM bin Admin, I think THAT should be said of YOUR ASS and NOT YOUR own Mother, bastard. Stop abusing YOUR own mother’s pussy…as that is where a scum like YOU popped from!!!

        “The Mid-Day report adds that the tantrik, named Ismail Azim Khan, went to her residence and in the garb of performing a pooja, HE ASKED HER TO HAVE SEX with him. He also asked her to offer Rs 26 lakh as an offering to appease God so that she wins the lottery. After getting the cash and raping the actress, the tantrik fled her house with the cash.”

        The Tantrik ASKED for sex :…….”he asked her to have sex with him”.

        YOU stupid FOOL ~ with an ASS of a whore, “ASKING” is paramount to ‘REQUESTING’ ~ which she agreed with the tantrick. This is proven by the FACT that she VERY WILLING SEX and VERY WILLINGLY gave him the CASH. Having SEX outside marriage is ADULTERY…fornication. PROSTITUTES DO THAT! On top of that, she paid him 26 lakh….where did she get that much money from??? This is a bulshit tale!

        How much do YOU charge for YOUR ass, per HOUR?? Or per ACT??

    • @plum the MC scum

      “I am more interested in the 2.6million rupees the dude ran away with. This prostitute deserved that!”

      your mother is a whore
      how does She charges?
      per act or per hour?

    • Let us visit some MORE balls in the Bible, okay?

      God PLEADS, begs earnestly, to SATAN to spare the LIFE of JOB!!!!!!!

      Job 2:6 (KJV) : “And the Lord(God) said unto Satan, Behold, he is in YOUR (satan’s) hand; but SAVE his life(Job’s).”

      2> I also noticed some JINNS strolling in the Bible!!!!!
      Job 18:9 (KJV) : “The JINN shall take him by the heel, and the robber shall prevail against him.”

      3>God had SONS by Tons and Satan dude used to visit GOD at times
      Job 1:6 (KJV) : Now there was a day when the SONS of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and SATAN CAME also among them (to present himself).
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jesus was NOT the ONLY Son~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!

      4> In fact, Jesus is called a WORM!
      First, see Matthew : Jesus calls himself the SON OF MAN.
      Behold, we(Jesus speaking) go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man ……..

      Now see this verse : Job 25:6 (KJV) :
      6 “How much less man, that is a worm? and the SON OF MAN, WHICH is a WORM?

      Son of Man is a WORM!!!!!

      And Catholics say the Bible is the TRUE word of GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Prophet Muhammad’s declared that the majority of the inhabitants of Hell are women.[1] Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

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

    Ahadith evidence
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
    Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
    Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

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

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


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

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

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


    Muhammad was referring to that specific group of women only
    Here is a video from Rasha Al-Disuqi, a West Coast based professor, author, and activist.[2] Her topic was “Rights of Muslim women and their rights in society”.
    In the above video she makes two claims:
    “Not a blanket statement for all Women”
    That hadith was said at a specific time, during a specific situation, addressing a specific group and it was not meant to be as a blanket statement.
    There is absolutely no evidence that Muhammad’s statements in the ahadith were directed at that specific group of women because:

    1. Muhammad’s sole piece of evidence for this statement is Allah’s mandate in Qur’an 2:282 which states that two women are required to give evidence in the absence of a man; this is to say that the testimony of one woman is equal to 1/2 of a man’s testimony. Nowhere in that verse does it say “This is for the women of Muhammad’s time” or “this is only for a specific group of women.” If the Qur’an is a book for all time, then the testimony of a woman is always the equivalent of 1/2 a man’s testimony in Islam. Therefore, for Muhammad to use this as evidence as to the deficiency of a woman’s mind proves that it was a “blanket statement” over all women who have and will ever live.

    2. In the same hadith (not the partial one) Muhammad tells the women that they are also deficient in religion. Islam is very much a works-based religion; every day of fasting ‘counts’ for your reward in heaven, every prayer, every ‘good deed’ (as outlined in the Qur’an). Since women are not allowed to pray or fast during their menses, this means that a woman doing every ‘good deed’ she is able to do, and a man doing every ‘good deed’ they are able to, will result in the man receiving a higher reward from Allah because he was able to do more religious deeds than the female.
    Do we also apply the “This was only for that specific group of Women” answer to Muhammad’s claim that women are also deficient in religion? Are women suddenly allowed to fast and pray when they are menstruating? We know they aren’t; so why should we apply one part of the hadith to that specific group of women when the second claim is clearly referring to all Muslim Women?

    3. Muhammad said “The majority of the dwellers of Hellfire are Women.” If these ahadith refer only to that group of women, then that group must have been extremely large. Think about how many women have and will exist on this earth throughout time. Now, the majority of the people in Hell are supposedly from this one group of Women that Muhammad was addressing? Where then are the pagans, the atheists, Christians, Jews and hypocritical Muslims? Where are the men? How big was this group of women?
    Muhammad was clearly making a blanket statement about all women.
    Scans of male and female brains prove it was only for that group
    Look at an X-RAY or MRI for that matter, you’ll find that both [male and female] brains are the same; why should they be deficient in any way? Women who are smarter, more intellectual in many fields. THAT argument [ that Muhammad was referring to all women ] is a failure.
    This argument is illogical: because modern science has shown us that there is no ‘deficiency’ in a female brain, then Muhammad could not have been referring to every woman. This argument ignores the evidence in favor of a more palatable interpretation. The fact is, modern science and common sense prove Muhammad’s statements to be incorrect. They do not prove that Muhammad was referring to a specific group of women only; merely that Muhammad was wrong in making a blanket statement.
    Rasha then shoots herself in the foot by proving in one short sentence that Muhammad was wrong; she herself knows that women are not stupid; that they are equal to, or excel men in many fields. But, in order to remain under the influence of someone who called her ‘deficient’ , she must use current knowledge in order to ‘spin’ Muhammad’s words. In essence, when she says “That argument is a failure” she is acknowledging that Muhammad was completely wrong to make such a claim.
    Muhammad was using hyperbole to scare women into giving alms
    But the Prophet (peace be upon him) was also being playful in his use of strong terms to impress this teaching on the listeners. Ruqayyah Waris Maqsud writes, “After the Farewell Pilgrimage at the Eid prayer, the Prophet walked past the men leaning on Bilal’s arm, and came to the rows of women behind them. Bilal spread out a cloth and the Prophet urged the women to be generous with their gifts of charity, for when he had been allowed a glimpse into the flames of Hell, he had noted that most of the people being tormented there were women.
    The women were outraged, and one of them instantly stood up boldly and demanded to know why that was so. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘you women grumble so much, and show ingratitude to your husbands! Even if the poor fellows spent all their lives doing good things for you, you have only to be upset at the least thing and you will say, ‘I have never received any good from you!’ (Bukhari 1.28, recorded by Ibn Abbas – who was present on that occasion as a child).
    At that the women began vigorously to pull off their rings and ear-rings, and throw them into Bilal’s cloth.”
    This is a very disingenuous presentation of evidence. This interpretation attempts to draw together two different sets of ahadith and present them as the same event. The first set is provided above. Here are the ones for this specific interpretation:
    Ibn ‘Abbas reported: I participated in the Fitr prayer with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and all of them observed this prayer before the Khutba, and then he (the Holy Prophet) delivered the sermon. Then the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) descended (from the pulpit) and I (perceive) as if I am seeing him as he is commanding people with his hand to sit down. He then made his way through their (assembly) till he came to the women. Bilal was with him. He then recited (this verse): O Prophet, when believing women come to thee giving thee a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah” (lx. 12) till he finished (his address to) them and then said: Do you conform to it (what has been described in the verse)? Only one woman among them replied: Yes, Apostle of Allah, but none else replied. He (the narrator) said: It could not be ascertained who actually she was. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted them to give alms. Bilal stretched his cloth and then said: Come forward with alms. Let my father and mother be taken as ransom for you. And they began to throw rings and ringlets in the cloth of Bilal.
    Sahih Muslim 4:1923

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

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

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

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

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

    Deficiency is only about giving financial testimony

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

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

    Muhammad was joking

    Muhammad knew that group of women very well, and as he would pass by them he would joke around with them. When he said that they were deficient in Intelligence and Religion he was joking around. They understood this.
    This is one of the most bizarre claims we’ve come across regarding these ahadith. When asked for evidence, the claimant is unable to do so. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence in the ahadith or elsewhere that this was an ‘in joke’ between Muhammad and these women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prophet Muhammad said about women: “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you,” and so on. This hadith and others like it were misunderstood by the ignorant. Corrupt people interpreted it in a way that differs from its original intent. Because of their ignorance, their insolence, their stupidity, and because of their enmity towards Islam and Muslims, they turned this hadith into evidence that Islam disgraces women, diminishing her value, and describes her in inadequate terms.
    . . .
    These hadiths provide some of the most decisive evidence that Islam protects women and guarantees their rights. Islam has surrounded the woman with a fence of compassion and mercy. It has shown that the twisted nature of women stems from their very creation. This is how Allah wanted woman to be. Therefore, the husband must adapt himself to her and be patient with her. He should not giver her too many things to do, or things that she is incapable of doing. He should not make her do anything that is contrary to her nature, and to the way she was created by Allah. In addition, he should turn a blind eye to her mistakes, he should tolerate her slips and errors, and put up with all the silly ignorant things she might say, because this constitutes part of the nature of her creation. In addition, women have surging emotions, which in some cases, might overpower their minds. The weakness with which women were created is the secret behind their attractiveness and appeal to their husbands. It is the source of women’s seduction of men, and one of the elements strengthening the bond between husband and wife. This is one of the wondrous miracles of Allah: The strength of a woman lies in her weakness. Her power of seduction and appeal lie in her emotions, which might overpower her mind at times.
    . . .
    Both husband and wife should satisfy their spouse’s natural urges, and should try to gratify their desires, as long as nothing prevents this. This is why the Prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven.” Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another hadith says: “She must go to him, even if she is on the back of a camel.” She must go to him, even if she is riding.
    Husbands Should Put Up with Their Wives’ Slips and Errors, Because the Twisted Nature of Women Stems from Their Very Creation
    MEMRI TV, Clip No. 1483, Broadcast: June 11, 2007

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

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

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

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


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

    Further thoughts on these ahadith

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

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

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

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

    1. Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301
    2. Book review and Profile of Rasha al-Disuqi
    3. Tafseer Quran 43:18: does this verse view women negatively?
    Egypt: Female Parliament Candidate says “Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority”
    Translated from the original Arabic by Al Mutarjim

    Female Salafi Candidate for Egyptian Parliament: “Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority”

    A female salafi candidate for Egyptian Parliament, Muna Salah, said to al-Sharq al-Awsat that women are deficient in intelligence and religion, and it is not permissible for them to be in authority or to occupy the office of the presidency. She defended her candidacy for the People’s Council, saying that acting as a representative in the Council only partial authority and not complete authority, such as the presidency of the republic. She added that she seeks to apply the Islamic shari’a, including cutting off the hands of thieves, preventing the mingling of men and women, and specifying black clothes for women and white clothes for men.

    While just one of thousands of candidates in the upcoming parliamentary elections, Muna Salah–president of the Manabir al-Noor Charity Association in Egypt–continues to provoke controversy. She is one of two veiled candidates in the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in two weeks. […]
    Female Salafi Candidate for Egyptian Parliament: “Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority”
    Donia al-Watan, November 17, 2011
    Both of these assertions, that women are deficient in intelligence and religion, and that they are not permitted to be in a position of authority, stem from the Islamic Creation narrative, and are affirmed by the words of Prophet Muhammad.
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
    Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

    Narrated Abu Bakra: During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”
    Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219

    • Louis bin Nation of Islam, however hard YOU try to teach us Hadiths…we are surely NOT interested in reading that crap.

      Q 3:195 : (P) : And their Lord hath heard them (and He saith): Lo! I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost. Ye proceed one from another.

      And, Q 4:124 (P): And whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone.
      Do the above verses undermine women?

      Now, compare that with the Bible :

      1 Corinthians 14:34-35 > The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.…

      and 1 Timothy 2:12-13 >But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.…

      The Quran clearly gives an equal status of women to that of men. But the Bible does NOT!

      • OH!
        Ms Plum is telling us that there are women mullahs & imams in the mosques!
        I wonder are they LESBIAN mosques, because the “dogs in the streets know” that men & women are segregated in the mosques!

        But then what would you expect from an ATHEIST, like Ms Plum.


        Distortion committed by Bukhari whilst copying down a tradition in his ‘Sahih’ pertaining to the legitimacy of sodomy

        We read in the Holy Quran:
        Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will (Yusufali, 2:223).
        In various Sunni works we read that testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar regarding the reason for the revelation of the said verse qua legitimacy of performing buggery on one’s wife. Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuuti for example recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 1 page 638:
        وأخرج الحسن بن سفيان في مسنده والطبراني في الأوسط والحاكم وأبو نعيم في المستخرج بسند حسن عن ابن عمر قال‏:‏ إنما نزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏{‏نساؤكم حرث لكم‏.‏‏.‏‏.‏‏}‏ الآية‏.‏ رخصة في إتيان الدبر‏.‏
        Hasan bin Sufiyan in his Musnad, Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Hakim and Abu Naeem in Al-Mastakhraj with a ‘Hasan’ chain of narration narrated from Ibn Umar who said: ‘This verse was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s) in respect of the permissibility of performing sex in the anus of a woman’
        Curiously, when it came to the great Imam Bukhari, he felt compelled to record the statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar in an incomplete manner. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50:
        Narrated Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in ..”
        ‘In’ what? Of course IN her anus and whilst Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti and other famed Sunni scholars recorded this fact, it was Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani who filled in the blanks whilst commenting on the cited tradition of Bukhari:
        في إتيان المرأة في دبرها
        “Approach the woman in her anus”
        Fatah ul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 page 190
        Imam Bukhari has recorded this tradition in his ‘Sahih’ with the following chain of narration:
        Ishaq (bin Rehwiya) – Nadar – Ibn Aun – Nnaf’i
        Now the most interesting part is that Bukhari actually copied down the above statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar from his Shaykh, namely Ishaq bin Rehwiya as mentioned by Ibn Hajar Asqalani:
        فقد أخرجها إسحاق ابن راهويه في مسنده وفي تفسيره بالإسناد المذكور ، وقال بدل قوله حتى انتهى إلى مكان ” حتى انتهى إلى قوله نساؤكم حرث لكم فأتوا حرثكم أنى شئتم فقال : أتدرون فيما أنزلت هذه الآية ؟ قلت لا . قال : نزلت في إتيان النساء في أدبارهن
        Ishaq bin Raheweh recorded it in his Musnad and his Tafsir with the same chain, when it reached the part “your wives are tilth to you, so go to your tilth anyhow you will” he said: ‘Do you know what for this verse has been revealed about?’ They said: ‘No’. He replied: ‘It has been revealed in regards to approaching women in their anuses’
        Interestingly whilst citing the said tradition verbatim Bukhari committed deception and did not quote the words of his Shaykh opting to leave a blank, in the hope that the attention plan of his readers would be short enough to confuse them and direct them to the next narration.
        SHIA PEN:
        Ch 8: Examples of Sunni morality
        As we stated in the previous chapter, Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have made a big mistake by attempting to argue that Shi’ite hadeeth literature legitimises immorality. All that we have discussed leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is in no way immoral, and that it was sanctioned by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s). Conversely, the Sunni hadeeth literature abounds with some of the most lurid and disgusting tales. The Sunni fiqh is, at times, even worse. Some notable examples of the public immorality of some companions and Sunni ‘ulama are given below, as well as some of the blasphemous stories attributed to the Holy Prophet (s) himself. For the sake of taste, we would normally not bring such issues up; but Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have uttered words of utter blasphemy against Allah, His Prophet, and His Religion, as well as forging numerous hadeeths against them. Since Dr. Salamah has decided to make a moral argument, than we will see how “moral” the Sunni belief system, hadeeth literature, and law is:
        (1) First example of Sunni morality
        Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:
        “Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.
        Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129
        He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that make masturbation halaal:
        “If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
        The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:
        an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short, their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!
        We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?
        (2) Second example of Sunni morality:
        After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:
        “If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.
        Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildoes, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.
        Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.

        (3) Third example of Sunni morality –
        That was not a typographical error. Ibn Qayyim continues this discussion, which exemplifies the morals espoused by Sunni Islam:
        “If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey]. In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.
        All the Muslims should certainly be grateful that Ibn Qayyim has offered this advice on the easiest way to masturbate, and clearly Ibn Qayyim has done a lot of personal research on this issue. This is the ruling of the “saved sect”: Contracting temporary marriage with a woman is haram, but contracting temporary marriage with a watermelon is halaal. In his defence, perhaps Ibn Qayyim only meant that it is allowed to marry a watermelon with the intent of divorcing it, for doing Mut’ah with a watermelon would clearly be an act of fornication.
        Let us remember the words of Dr. Salamah quoted at the beginning of this book:
        Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and shelter to the woman.
        • Well, it seems that in the Nasibi logic having sex with as many women as one can afford is utterly immoral, but having sex with as many watermelons as one can afford is not. Based on this, let us ask him some questions about the Ahkam related to having sex with watermelons: Are there any conditions as to the age of the watermelon? For example, is it allowed to perform a marriage with the intent to divorce with a newly grown watermelon, or must one wait until the watermelon is nine years old?
        • Must it be a pious watermelon, or is it permissible to contract a marriage with the intent to divorce with a watermelon that is known to “get around”?
        • May a pious brother share his watermelon with another pious brother, or would the second man’s marriage with the intent to divorce constitute an act of fornication unless the watermelon observes proper ‘iddah?
        • Are witnesses required in the marriage with the intent to divorce of a watermelon? May other watermelons serve as witnesses in that marriage, since according to Sunni fiqh all marriages require witnesses? Applying the Sunni principle of Qiyas (analogy), we can strongly argue that if it is allowed to marry (with intention of divorce) a watermelon, than certainly it is allowed for a watermelon to bear witness to another watermelon’s blessed and chaste marriage.
        • What about oranges?
        Really, we have to ask all reasonable Muslims: would you rather follow ‘ulama that rule on the permissibility of having sex with fruits and vegetables, or follow the pious path of the Holy Imams (as), of whom Allah (swt) has said:
        We intend, O Family of the Prophet, to remove from you all impurity, and to give you a through purification.
        Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33
        Does somebody who spends his time thinking about whether or not it is permissible to have sex with watermelons really sound like somebody who has been removed of all impurity? Why is Ibn Qayyim even thinking about such things? What kind of personal life does such a person have that would lead him to debate such issues in his mind? What happened in Ibn Qayyim’s life that one day he woke up and said: “I really need to find out if its halaal to have sex with watermelons.” Is the type of clergymen who openly rules for the permissibility of having sex with watermelons (with conditions, of course, such as that one is on a journey) be the kind of person you would want to meet in a dark alley, much less do taqlid of?

        (4)Fourth example of Sunni morality –
        We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:
        Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
        This reference is especially for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? How many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to attack the practice of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:
        واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيميه رحمه الله التفصيل وقال إذا دعت الحاجة إلى إرضاع الكبير وأرضع ثبت التحريم
        “Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”
        Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204
        Imam Ibn Hazm records:
        ورضاع الكبير محرم ولو انه شيخ يحرم كما يحرم رضاع الصغير
        “The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”
        Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17
        Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:
        There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:
        There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.
        Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!

        (5) Fifth example of Sunni morality –
        Sunni Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H) records in his authority work ‘Badaye al-Sanae’ Volume 2 page 216:
        ولو وطئ بهيمة لا يفسد حجه
        “If he had sexual intercourse with an animal that will not make his hajj void”
        (6) Sixth example of Sunni morality –
        In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
        “It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
        Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603
        Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:
        “Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
        Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820
        What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!

        (7) Seventh Example of Sunni morality –
        According to the great Salafi Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely permissible to pray behind a drunkard. We read in the his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, p. 271
        The Companions would pray behind people whom they knew to be open transgressors, such as when Abd ‘Allah ibn Mas’ud and other Companions would pray behind Walid ibn ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’it, who may have recently drunken alcohol (when he was praying) and would wind up praying four rakaats.
        The salat is the pillar of the religion, and yet here we see it being stated that it is permissible to pray behind someone who is drunk at the time, and who is so intoxicated that he prays four rakaats for the morning prayer. Yet let us remember that, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely impermissible to pray behind a Shi’a!

        (8) Eighth Example of Sunni morality –
        We read in Dur al-Mukhthar, Volume 2, Page 474 (a compilation of the great Fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifa) as follows:
        We read in Fathul Qadeer that if a man informs a woman that he is paying her for sex then he cannot be subject to any manner of Islamic penalty.
        Dur al-Mukhtar, Volume 2, page 474
        It is indeed sad to say that the Hanafi madhab whilst catering for a man’s sexual appetite is very prejudicial to monkeys. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188 we read the very sad plight of this immoral, promiscuous monkey:
        Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
        During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
        If this Hanafi had paid this she monkey for sex he would have been absolved of any Islamic penalty, whilst this poor she monkey who releases her animal instincts is stoned to death!

        (9) Ninth example of Sunni Morality Fatwa of Abu Hanifa on –
        Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan writes in his book of fatwa, Volume 4, p. 820:
        Of things which are haram but for which there is no Islamic penalty, these include… marrying your wife’s sister, or her mother, or a woman who is already married.
        Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, page 820
        On the very next page Qadhi Khan records a classic Fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa
        “if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty”.
        Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, Ppage 821
        We read in another authority Hanafi work, Fatwa Alamgiri:
        “If someone marries five women at a time or marries a fifth woman while already having four wives or marries his sister in law or mother in law and then performs intercourse with her and then says that I knew that it is haram for me or performs nikah al mutah with a woman then there will be no plenty of adultery on him in all of these situations though he confessed that he knew it was haram on him”
        Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 3 page 264
        Let us understand this then: in accordance with the fatwa of ‘Umar, the Sunni position is that anybody who contract Mut’ah should be executed. However, if somebody marries his mother, not just commits incest, but actually pronounces a formal marriage, there is no penalty for that person.
        This should demonstrate the degree to which Sunni Islam is nothing but an artificial construction, designed solely to be a bulwark against the mission of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). When a sincere reader sees that these individuals have ruled that there is no Islamic penalty for marrying one’s mother, but that there is for doing Mut’ah, does not reason dictate that such fatwas about Mut’ah are motivated only by bigotry and hatred of the Shi’a? When a Sunni rules that it is permissible to pray behind a drunk person who is so intoxicated he can’t even keep track of the number of rakaats he has prayed, but then says that it is not permissible to pray behind a sober Shi’a, what should one think? Does this seem like the religion of the Prophet (s), or the religion of a group of hate-filled scholars?

        (10) Tenth example of Sunni morality –
        As we are intending on highlighting the morals presented by a favourite of the Salafi and Nasibi we have chosen to rely on the following authentic Sunni sources:
        1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
        2. Al Akhbar at Tawaal, page 177 Dhikr Sifeen
        3. Al Manaqib al Khwarizmi page 162 Dhikr Sifeen
        4. Al Fusul al Muhimma, page 91 Dhikr Sifeen
        5. Tadhkira al Khawwas al Ummah, page 51 Dhikr Sifeen
        6. Mutalib al Saul, page 122 Dhikr Sifeen
        7. Nur al Absar, page 94 Dhikr Sifeen
        8. Aqd al Fareed, page 235 Dhikr Sifeen
        9. Al Imam wa al Siyasa, page 99 Dhikr Sifeen
        We read in al Bidaya:
        “One day ‘Ali attacked Amr ibn Aas, he threw a spear and Amr fell to the ground, Amr fell to the ground and he then exposed his buttocks. ‘Ali then turned away his face [people said] this was Amr bin Aas. ‘Ali replied he showed me his anus and this made me merciful to him. When Amr ibn Aas returned, Mu’awiya said ‘You should praise Allah and your anus”.
        Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
        Allamah Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Dawud Dinori in ‘Akhbar al Tawaal’ has reported the flashing incident in the same manner, with the words of Mu’awiya to his beloved Commander as follows:
        “You should shower praises on Allah (swt) and that black anus that saved your life today”
        Islam has a code of ethics for all scenarios, including behaviour during Jihad, we are yet to find any code wherein Rasulullah (s) authorised the Sahaba to expose their buttocks as a means of sickening the opposition! In Karachi a Nasibi scholar said to his blind followers ‘Had Mu’awiya not entered on the plains of Sifeen the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered’. We agree with this conclusion but it would have been achieved through the battle tactics of Amr ibn Aas, since not even the greatest military tactitioner would not have accounted for this ‘shock and awe’ tactic! Our appeal to our Rafidi brethren is to control the illiterates in our community from throwing mud at Amr ibn Aas for this immoral act: after all had Amr not survived that day, who would have been enlightened enough to place the Qur’an on spears? Who would have dishonestly made Mu’awiya the khalifa during the negotiations? The Salafi are no doubt ever indebted to Amr bin Aas, for all future events such the rise to power of their fifth Khalifa Mu’awiya as Khalifa was all through the Sadaqa of the anus of Amr ibn Aas.


        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]



        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.


        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)


        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.”


        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. 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.
        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.


        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.


        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.

        From the above, we can gather that Robert Masters had correctly stated, “bestiality was not specifically prohibited by the Prophet,” so there is little wonder that Islamists generally shy away from mentioning Abu Dawud 38:4449 in their pronouncements on bestiality.

      • plum, you are as stupid as an a$$, who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. islam is the other name of terrorism

        • Jon, I will be more civil than YOU…as I can say the same of YOU.

          And, come out of YOUR nutshell before YOU are forced out!

          • Jon, YOU may hold daggers with the Muslims….but I would like to tell YOU that YOU are the pseudo admin.

            Muhammad came and removed the barbaric, superstitious evil cults
            and brought about a religion that teaches kindness, respect to womenfolk and to fight against injustice.

            What has been missed out in the Quran?

          • Louis, YOUR wife belongs to an Israeli king!

            YOUR GOLD AND WIVES ARE MINE!!!!!!!!!

            1 Kings 20:3 KJV : Thy silver and thy gold is mine; YOUR WIVES ALSO and thy children, even the goodliest, ARE MINE. (THIS KING LOVES OTHERS’ WIVES’ PUSSIES)

            21 And the KING of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and SLEW the Syrians with a GREAT slaughter. (REAL MASS MURDER)

            30 But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a WALL FELL upon twenty and seven thousand (27,000) of the men that were left. (GOD MURDERED THEM IN BROAD DAYLIGHT)

            36 Then… behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a LION shall SLAY thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a LION FOUND him, and SLEW him!

            The BIRDS made out of Water as well as out of the Ground!

            Genesis 1:20 > And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and FOWL that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
            Genesis 2:19 >And out of the GROUND the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. (WHICH STATEMENT IS TRUE 1:20 or 2:19?)

            NOAH’S ark ….2 or 7?
            Genesis 7:3 (KJV)>Of fowls also of the air by SEVENS, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
            Genesis 6:20 >Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, TWO of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

            Genesis 3:4 (KJV)> And the SERPENT said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely DIE.
            Genesis 3:3 >God hath said, ……., lest YOU DIE.

            Hebrews 11:17(KJV)> By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up ISAAC: and he that had received the promises offered up his ONLY begotten SON.
            BUT ABRAHAM HAD TWO SONS…ref Gal 4:22 >Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had TWO sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

  2. Actually this can not be termed as rape…Supreme Stupidity on the part of the lady, yes, but not rape….She did it willingly and only informed the police after the guy went missing….Had she won the lottery she would not had said anything.

      • Beards Keep You Young, and Healthy says Science!

        “Gentlemen, they’re not just for hipsters and the homeless any more. While both dead sexy and totally awesome, beards are also a boon to your overall health. Researchers discovered that men with beards and moustaches actually enjoy numerous benefits including, but not limited to, instant handsomeness.

        A study from the University of Southern Queensland, published in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal, found that beards block 90 to 95 percent of UV”.


          By Joseph E. Holloway

          The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class, and in some cases were the sons and daughters of white slave masters. Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status. According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.

          These mulattoes of the old free Black elite did not attend church with the dark-skinned blacks of Charleston City. They not only formed congregations which excluded freedmen of dark complexion, but they only married among other mulattoes to “keep the color in the family.”

          Large numbers of free Blacks owned black slaves in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slave-owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.
          Slave holding among the mulatto class in South Carolina was widespread according to the first census of 1790, which revealed that 36 out of 102, or 35.2 percent of the free Black heads of family held slaves in Charleston City. By 1800 one out of every three free black recorded owning slave property. Between 1820 and 1840 the percentage of slaveholding heads of family ranged from 72.1 to 77.7 percent, however, by 1850 the percentage fell to 42.3 percent.

          According to the U.S. Census report in 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. Out of a population of 27 million whites only eight million lived in the South, and out of this population fewer than 385,000 owned slaves. In short, the total white population own about 1.4, while the southern white population own about 4.8 enslaved Africans.
          On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.

          Year Owners Slaves
          1790 49 277
          1800 36 315
          1810 17 143
          1820 206 1,030
          1830 407 2,195
          1840 402 2,001
          1850 266 1,087
          1860 137 544

          The following chart shows the free Black slave owners and their slaves in Charleston, 1790-1860.In 1860 there were at least six African Americans in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Black slave magnate in Louisiana with over 100 slaves was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at $264, 000. In North Carolina 69 free Blacks were slave owners.
          The majority of urban black slave owners were women. In 1820, free black women represented 68 percent of heads of households in the North and 70 percent of slaveholding heads of colored households in the South. The large percentage of black women slave owners is explained by manumission by their white fathers, or inheritance from their white fathers or husbands. Black women were the majority of slaves emancipated by white slave owning men with whom they had sexual relations. Thirty-three percent of all the recorded colonial manumissions were mulatto children and 75 percent of all adult manumissions were females.


          Euro-Americans arrived in Jamestown Virginia in 1607, and the first large group of Africans arrived in 1619. However, House of Burgess records show that Africans were already in the colony before 1619. John Rolfe provides us with an eyewitness account of this first group. “About the last of August [1619] came a Dutch man of Warre that sold us twenty negars.” Among them was one called Antonio from Angola. Later, we find that Antonio becomes Anthony Johnson. Other listed was Angelo, a negro woman,” and John Pedro, a neger aged 30.” The census of 1624-25 showed that there were twenty-three Africans living in Jamestown, Virginia listed as servants and not slaves.

          Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians. At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving. Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality. In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, “a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro,” having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior. The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery. The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have “thirty stripes apiece.” The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should “first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired” and that they shall served the colony for three years. “The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life.” This marks the first time that race and color becomes a factor in the status of both black and white indentured servants. In other words, the system is rapidly evolving to meet the new demand for cheap labor, and race is slowing being used as the justification for the enslavement of peoples of African origins. Between 1640 and 1660 Africans were going to court and suing for their freedom.

          In 1644 Thomas Bushrod, assignee of Colonel William Smith, sold a mulatto boy named Manuel “as a slave for-Ever, but in September, 1644 the said servant was by the Assembly adjudged no Slave and but to as other Christian servants do and was freed in September, 1665.” A similar ruling is found in the case Robinson.
          In 1649, there were about three hundred Africans in the colony and an increasing mulatto population. African and European indentured servants off springs were increasing and considered alarming in regard to the status of the mulatto. That is a system was evolving based on being either black or white.

          Africans who entered Jamestown between 1620 to 1650 could expect to be freed after serving their indented time and given 50 to 250 acres of land, hogs, cows and seeds and the right to import both white and black indentured servants. For a brief period in American history between 1630 to 1670, a number of Africans had become freedmen and owned indented white servants. The act of 1670 forbidden free Negroes to own Christian servants but conceded the right to own servants of their own race. By 1670, it was becoming customary to hold African servants as “slaves for life,” and by 1681 what was customary became law.

          The first laws regarding the status of Africans recognized the free blacks. The first status was passed in 1662 provided that the status of offspring should follow that status of the mother. What this law did was to allow white fathers to enslave their own children, and free women of color to perpetuate the free black population. In other words, it also guaranteed freed black females the right to extend their free status to their children. Black women who have served their indentured period would not provide foundation for the free black community. Many of those African who were grandfathered in the new system not only became the free black community, but this is the origins of Black slave owners.
          The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a free black woman, and two years later an act guaranteed to “negroes manumitted or otherwise free” the right to own servants of their own race and expressly denied to them the right to purchase or to own white or “Christian servants.” This law recognized and sanctioned slavery, but also guaranteed the continuity of the free black class, who were now largely mulatto.


          Black slave owners have not been studied as a part of American history, rather as a datum to American history, and yet slavery as a perpetual institution is legalized based on a case brought before the House of Burgess by an African, who had been indentured in Jamestown, Virginia 1621 and was known as Antonio the Negro according to the earliest records. He later Anglicized his name to Anthony. Anthony Johnson was believed to be the first Black to set foot on Virginia soil. He was the first black indentured servant, the first free black, and the first to establish the first black community, first black landowner, first black slave owner, and the first person based on his court case to establish slavery legally in North America. One could argue that he was the founder of slavery in Virginia.
          Anthony Johnson arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1621. In 1623, Antoney[sic] and Isabella married. The next year they were the proud parents of William. William is believed to be the first African American born in British America. During his first years in North America, he escaped death in an Indian attack on Jamestown. During the following year Africans and people of color were a small minority in the Virginia colony. The census of 1625 reported only twenty-three Africans living in the colony out of a total of 1,275 white people and indigenous Africans. By 1649 the total black population was only 300 out of a total of 18,500 whites.

          In 1635 Johnson’s master, Nathaniel Littleton finally released him. As the custom was he received a 250 acre plantation in 1651 under the “head right system” by which the colonial government encouraged population growth by awarding fifty acres of land for every new servant a settler brought to Virginia. He became the master of both black and white servants.

          Anthony Johnson’s plantation was located on the neck of land between two creeks that flowed into the Pungoteague River in Northampton County. A few years later, his relatives, John and Richard Johnson, also acquired land in this area. John brought eleven servants to the colony and received 550 acres, and Richard brought two and received 100 acres.

          In 1654 Anthony Johnson went to court and sued his white neighbor for keeping his black servant John Casor. Casor claimed that Johnson “had kept him his serv [an] t seven years longer than hee should or ought. Johnson who the courts described as an “old Negro,” claimed that he was entitled to “ye Negro [Casor] for his life.” Johnson realized that if he continued and persisted in his suit, Casor could win damages against him. So, Johnson brought suit against his white neighbor Robert Parker, whom Johnson charged had detained Casor “under pretense [that] the s[ai]d John Casor is a freeman.” The courts now ruled in his favor and John Casor was returned to him and Parker had to pay the court costs.

          This case establishes perpetual servitude in North America, and it is ironic that the case was brought to the court by an African who had arrived from Angola in 1621. Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime service of John Casor; this was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

          Anthony Johnson lived on his plantation surrounded by his white neighbors. He had entered a system not based on slavery, but indentured servitude. There were many Anthony Johnson’s in America, who never spent a day in slavery but were owners of slaves.


          In 1767, a Frenchman named Claude Thomas Pierre Metoyer met Marie Therese Coin-Coin from the Kongo and promptly fell in love. They became immediate occupants in Natchitoches, Louisiana where Marie and Claude lived together as man and wife. They had their first children together in January 1768, a set of twins. Things were rough going for the couple; the church would not have anything to do with the relationship and at this time Marie and her infant son Augustine were still enslaved. Early in 1776 Metoyer purchased his child and shortly after that in a private document he freed Marie and the child. Years later Marie and Metoyer broke up but, not before fathering six children. Marie stayed in Natchitoches and worked the Melrose plantation Claude Metoyer left for her; he then moved to New Orleans, left for France and married a proper French woman.
          In 1778 free nonwhites were a very small minority in Natchitoches, Louisiana. By 1785, that had not changed. Marie, Augustine, and two additional sons born to her after manumission were half of the free nonwhite population. By 1786, she had eight children Augustine, Pierre, Joseph, Dominique, Francois, Toussaint, Louis, Marie Suzanne, four of whom were still enslaved.

          From the money and land that Metoyer gave her, she started a plantation. The first crop was tobacco, and in 1792 she was shipping 9,900 rolls to Cuba for cigars (Mills, 30). She also produced indigo, manufactured medicine and the major source of her income came from hunting bears and fowl. All this was done with the help of her older sons, because she had no slaves at this time. She tried for nine years to free her other children from slavery and in 1815 when Metoyer died all her children were freed. In 1816 written Church documents show that she had twelve slaves, but local tradition credits her with many more. Marie Theresa now had three plots of land estimated at 11,000 acres. She was now in her late sixties and completely turned over the plantation to her children. She died sometime in the spring of 1816.

          Augustine was now married and on his own since 1795. He was the first of Marie and Claude’s children to acquire a plantation, and become a slave owner. Within two years he purchased his first slave, a male between the age of eighteen and twenty to help him clear the fields. Most of the slaves he bought were for labor, but he did purchase some for family devotion. In 1798, he bought his second slave, an eight-year-old named Marguerite who was his wife’s sister. In 1800, $300 was paid for his third slave; this was a child of his still enslaved brother. The next year a slave named Marie was purchased and became Pierre’s wife. His second labor slave was purchased in 1806, a female to be the wife of the male he already owned. In June of 1809, Augustine purchased eight “African Negroes” for $3,500 cash: a male, five boys and two girls aged eleven to thirteen, and then three of the males were sold to his brother for $1,350. In 1810, he purchased two more slaves from a planter in the next county. Similar purchases and manumissions are recorded for of the Metoyer children. In 1810, Marie Suzanne purchased a slave costing $600; the peculiar thing was that she was still a slave herself. By the 1810 census Augustine had seventeen slaves; Louise, fifteen; Pierre, twelve; Dominique, eight; Francois, three; Joseph, two; and Toussaint, one. A total of fifty-eight slaves were acquired in just twelve years. The fifty-eight slaves had increased to 287 by the end of 1830. The Metoyer surname owned an average of 2.3 slaves per person, and the whites in the county only owned an average of .9 slaves per person. No other family group came close to matching the holdings of the Metoyer name.

          The affluent period was between 1830 and 1840 for the Metoyer family. Pierre, one of the less prosperous brothers died in 1834 leaving a plantation of 677 acres, after giving his seven children land for their marriages. Augustine divided the land between six children and kept two plantations for himself, which contained 2,134 acres (Mills, 109). Early in 1850 the Metoyer family had improved their land by 5,667 acres and had a total of 436 slaves. In the treatment of Metoyer family slaves there are some contradictory statements.

          When it came to the treatment of slaves black owners were “in a bind”. If they were nice to their slaves, they were considered by the whites to be overly tolerant. On the other hand, if they treated their slaves harshly the blacks would say they were abusive of “their people”. Legend has it that one of the original Metoyer brothers was a hard taskmaster, but not to his own slaves. He would try-out the slaves and makes them do the worst work on his plantation, things that he didn’t want his own slaves doing. After the work was done he would return the slave and claim poor working habits. That same tradition holds for one of the sisters also; there are also many written advertisements about runaway slaves that the Metoyer family put in the local newspaper. They occasionally hired a slave catcher to retrieve a slave. There is no real proof that the Metoyer family was any different from other slave owner’s black or white. Not all of the black slave owners worked and owned plantations. There were many black masters who were artisans and used slaves as workers. One of the most prominent of these owners was William Ellison.


          On June 20, 1820 April Ellison appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Summerville, South Carolina, to change his slave name. Since, he was a free man he wanted his name changed to his former master’s William.

          After his emancipation William moved to Stateburg, South Carolina (see figure 2) and became an apprentice for Mr. William McCreight. After four years of hard labor and William Ellison was ready to start his own business as a gin maker. The first few years he primarily repaired gins, but each year his customers and reputation grew. Between June 8, 1816 and January 1817, William (then April) purchased and freed his wife Matilda and his daughter Eliza Ann and brought them to Stateburg. His son Henry was born in or near Stateburg in January 1817, followed two years later by William Jr. and in another two years by Reuben.

          By 1820 Ellison had managed to buy his first two slaves, two males, ages twenty-six and forty-five respectively. With the purchase of the two slaves he demonstrated to the local whites that he was not afraid to own, use and exploit slave labor. In just four short years he was a master gin maker, had changed his name and was now a slave owner.
          William purchased a valuable location for his shop right at the cross road of town. The going rate at the time was $3.00 to $7.00 an acre, but he knew what prime land was worth and paid $375.00 for the land to his shop. The gin business flourished, and his reputation among the whites grew. Now that he was a prominent figure in the community he purchased more land, but this land was for a plantation.

          To William Ellison slaves were a source of labor. This ideology helps to explain why there was a ratio male to female of 4 to 1 in the 1860s. The male slaves were a direct source of income, the females were future benefits. Assuming that the women produced children at a ratio of one boy to one girl the best explanation for a shortage of girls is that they were sold as slaves. The average price for a slave girl was $400 and selling twenty girls would add additional $8,000 cash, which could contribute to land and slave purchases. This silent tradition around Stateburg was not questioned, but his reputation as a harsh master was talked about. His slaves were said to be the district’s worst fed and clothed. Ellison and his family lived frugally; he was even more tightfisted about providing food, clothes, and housing for his slaves. His harsh treatment may have come from the fact that his slaves were very bitter, because the men and women had seen their daughters sold away into slavery. Also, the harsh treatment could have been from Ellison’s need to prove to the whites that he was not soft on slaves, because of his color. Sometimes his slaves ran away, and on at least one occasion he hired a slave catcher. He never skipped on medical care for his slaves, but he did not care to help their spiritual needs. Through all the years William Ellison may have been harsh on his slaves, but the money they produced helped keep his family well-to-do up until the Civil war.
          In 1829 he purchased two more male slaves between the ages twelve and twenty-four. Early in the 1830s Ellison started using his sons as gin makers, but there was still more work than the men could handle. At the end of the decade, Ellison now owned thirty-six slaves thirty were male, and six female who mostly worked the fields and produced children. The census at this time had Ellison with fourteen slaves. As his ownership of slaves grew so did his land, buying over 350 acres in that ten-year span. By his fiftieth birthday, in 1840, William had reached a plateau that few whites let alone blacks had ever reached. In the early 1840s his sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston and came to live on the Ellison Plantation. His sons became slave owners with the help of their father. The slaves were from the Ellison family and were just passed down to the next generation. These slaves were not income producing slaves, but rather house servants. By 1860, Ellison increased his slave population from thirty-six in 1850 to sixty-three, an increase of seventy-five percent.

          That year, in the census he reported that his total worth was just over $61,000, which was very low for the property and personal slaves that he owned. The man who started out life as a slave achieved financial success. His wealth was 90 percent greater than his white neighbors in Sumter district. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was fifteen times greater than that of the state’s average for whites, and Ellison owned more than 99 percent of the South’s slaveholders. He never achieved a monopoly in Stateburg, but was the highest producing slave owner in the county. Without slaves Ellison could never gotten past the income of a tradesman; with the slaves he accomplished the security of no other.

          Although, a successful slave owner and cotton farmer, Ellison major source of income came from “slave breeding.” Throughout the South slave breeding was looked down on with disgust. He began slave breeding in 1840. Females were not productive workers in his factor or cotton fields, so he only kept a few women for breeders, and sold most of his females. He had the reputation of being a harsh master. His slaves were the worst fed and clothed. He maintained on his property a windowless building where he chained his problem slaves.

          His slaves were listed among the runaways because of his harsh treatment. Having started life out as a slave did not make him sensitive to their needs because he saw his slaves as no more than property.

          On one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s hunted down one of his valuable slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: “I was paid $77.50 returning the slave, and $74.00 for expenses.”

          William Ellison died on December 5, 1861. According to his last will and testament his estate should be divided jointly by his free daughter and two surviving sons; he also bequeathed $500 to a daughter he had sold into slavery.

          During the Civil War the Ellison family actively participated and supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war, and they also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency. At the end of the war all this was worthless and cost the family a great deal of wealth.

          On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison’s oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P. P. Galliard and A. H. Boykin, local whites who knew that Buckner was Black was but overlooked this factor because of the Ellison family’s prestige and money his race status was changed to “honorary” white. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895, he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a “faithful soldier.”


          The majority of the colored masters were mulattoes and their slaves were overwhelmingly of black skin. There was strong division between the two classes based on color, class, status and a culture of whiteness. There was a color and cultural clash between the two groups. The mulatto community in Charleston separated themselves from the dark skinned people, and they banned dark skinned people from their social clubs and seldom married unmixed blacks.

          They created exclusionary societies such as the Brown Fellowship society. Membership was based on brown skin meaning the sons and daughters of slave masters. They formed schools and benevolent groups to provide mutual aid and operated a burial ground and society. Among its members were John W. Gordon, William T. Oliver, Edward P. and Lafayette F. Wall, Richard Dereef and Robert Houston.

          Richard Edward Dereef was one of the richest black men in Charleston. He had a Wharf at the end of Chapel Street, was in the wood business, and owned slaves and rental properties, most of which were located on the east side of Charleston. Richard Dereef would never have been accepted into Charleston’s elite mulatto society, but he claimed to be an Indian- and had money. For the most part the mulatto slave owner aligned themselves with the white ruling class and helped to preserve the system of slavery.
          Among black slave holders the free mulattoes owners were over represented, being the offspring of white planters and merchants. Many of their white fathers provided for them. Thomas Hanscome, a white planter of St. James and Goose Creek, provided for the mulatto children of Nancy Randale, a free black woman, with six slaves as well as stocks and bonds valued at $150,000. In 1823, the mulatto children of Henry Glencamp, the superintendent of the Sante Canal, and Jenny Wilson, a free black woman, inherited eighteen slaves as well as the plantation called Pine Hill in Stephens of Charleston District.

          Many white fathers accepted their black children as legitimate heirs. For example, the children of Michael Fowler, a white planter of Christ church Parish, and his black slave/wife named Sibb lived as man and wife and raised a family on his plantation. According to Calvin D. Wilson “there was a rich planter in Charleston named Fowler who took a woman of African descent and established her in his home…There was a daughter born, who was called Isabella; the planter insisted that she be called as miss Fowler. He expected his slaves to treat his mulatto children if though they were white. His children were so acculturated into the white elite slave holding class that they only associated with whites. In 1810, the estate of Michael Fowler was divided among his mulatto children: John Fowler, Jacob Fowler, Stanhope Fowler, Nelly Fowler Collins, Becky Fowler and Isabell Fowler Dereef. The Fowler failed to emancipate any of their slaves and regarded them as investment property. They held their slaves until the end of the Civil War.

          Many enslaved mulattoes like William Ellison started out as a slave. Another case is Anthony Weston, a de facto free black of Charleston City, was trained as a millwright. As the slave of Plowder Weston, he was able to hire himself out to several white planters as well as work for his master. In 1826, his master declared him freed. His skill as a millwright allowed him to accumulate a great deal of wealth and he began to invest in slaves. Technically being a slave himself, he purchased a large number of slaves in his wife name between 1834 and 1835, to purchase a total of 20 slaves, investing $8,950. He trained some of his slaves as mill wrights and they worked in his business. He became one of the wealthiest black persons in the city. By 1860, his estate was valued at $48,075 by city officials

          In 1822, Moses Brown, a colored barber, purchased an African American boy named Moses from Mary Warhaim for $300. He trained the boy in the art of barbering. By 1823, the boy was working in his shop on 5 Tradd Street as a barber. In 1829, Camilla Johnson, a colored pastry cook, purchased a mulatto woman named Charleston Todd from Joseph and Ann Wilkie for $375. According to a Charleston socialite, Camilla Johnson used her mulatto servant to work at several of the parties she was hired to cater.


          Richard Holloway Sr., a free person of color bought a slave named Charles Benford in order that the slave might enjoy his freedom. Yet at the same time he owned other slaves who were not treated so kindly. In 1834, he purchased a slave woman named Sarah and her two children, Annett and Edward, from Susan B. Robertson for $575. Within three years after the purchase, he apparently became dissatisfied with the slave family and sold them for $945. Even though Richard Holloway, Sr., allowed a trusted servant to enjoy-his freedom, he was still a slave owner for profit. He sold and purchased slaves as an investment.

          In 1851, Elizabeth Collinis Holloway, a woman of color, placed her servant Celia in the city jail after her slave had run away. In 1852, Holloway’s servant Peggy was confined in the workhouse for disciplinary reasons.

          In the Palmetto (rice areas) there were only seven large rice planters of African descent, and they were primarily related to white kin. One example of this is the Pendarvis family, which was one of the largest slave owning “colored” families to plant rice in the state during the 1730s. The mulatto children of Joseph Pendarvis, a white planter of Colleton County, and his African mistress Parthena, were given 1,009 acres of land near the Green Savanna as well as a plantation in Charleston Neck. Joseph Pendarvis gave to his children James, Brand, William, John, Thomas, Mary, and Elizabeth, land, money and slaves. They became one of the wealthiest and most prominent slaveholding families in South Carolina. James the first born received most of the property of his deceased father, and owned more than 100 slaves. By 1786, he owned 113 slaves and 3,250 acres of land. The 1790 census informs us that he owned 123 slaves. Many of the mulatto offspring of white planters became large plantation owners in their own right.

          For example, Margaret Mitchell Harris and her half brother Robert Michael Collins inherit money, plantation and slaves from their white father. In 1844, she bought Santee Plantation for 4,050, but made $7,635 from the harvest in 1849. She ran a profitable enterprise.


          The notion of a homogenous African American group united by a common African ethnicity and culture is a myth. Many scholars failed to recognize the diversity in language, culture, class and color among African Americans, and how those differences provided one group of African Americans with extraordinary opportunities for higher educational and trade skills when compared to the black population. Historically, there has always been great tension between the “mulatto” and black classes because of the association of “yellow” skin with high status and class within the black social apex. Slave masters exploited these tensions for their obvious benefits, keeping their mulatto children elevated over the African field worker, and African Americans have continue to perpetuated this system of privilege and discrimination based on light skin long after whites stop make any distinction between light and dark skinned blacks. The root to this disparity is the American plantation during the 17th and 18th century.

          The majority of black slave owners were members of the mulatto class, and in most cases were the sons and daughters of white slave masters. Many of the mulatto slave owners separated themselves from the masses of black people and attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free status. According to Martin Delany, the colored community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the superiority of white blood and brown skin complexion.

          After slavery it was the children of the mulato class that was more willing to cross the color line and to bridge the gap between light-skinned and dark-skinned blacks. Also, a large number of the “new” black leaders in the South came from this class/caste group. The sons and daughters of black slave masters were educated and resourceful. In the late 1860s, Frances Rollins, the daughter of William Rollins, a black slave owner of Charleston City, worked as a school teacher in Beaufort County. She was educated at the Institution for Colored Youth in Philadelphia and was one of four sisters who worked to uplift the newly freed in South Carolina. Later, she married William James Whipper, a state representative of South Carolina. Thaddeus Sasportas, the son of Joseph A. Sasportas, a mulatto slave owner, went to Orangeburg County to aid the ex-slaves and to work as a teacher, where he taught ex-slaves to read and write.

          Franklin, John Hope, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. New York: Alfred A.Knopf, 1980.
          Johnson, Michael P. and James L. Roark. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. New York: W.W Norton and Company, 1984.
          Koger, Larry. Black Slave owners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina 1790-1860. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers.
          Lewis, Ronald L. and James E. Newton, Eds. The Other Slaves: Mechanics, Artisans, and Craftsmen. Mass.: G. K. Hall and Co., 1978.
          Littlefield, Daniel C. Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity and the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. 74-80, 83-86.
          Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen, The American Negro. New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970.
          Mills, Gary B. The Forgotten People: Cane River’s Creoles of Color Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977.
          Phillips, Ulrich B. American Negro Slavers: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as determined by the Plantation Regime New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918.
          Woodson, Carter G. Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830: Together with Absentee ownership of Slaves in the United States in New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. 68-72, 84-85.
          Roark, James L. and Johnson, Michael P. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984
          A Defense of Southern Slavery and Other Pamphlets. New York: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 1969. 14-16
          Elkins, Stanley M. Slavery A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969. 165.
          Gatell, Frank Otto and Allen Weinstein, Eds. American Negro Slavery: A Modern Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 136-141.
          Lewis, Ronald L. Coa1, Iron, and Slavery Industrial Slavery in Maryland and Virginia, 1715-1865. Westport, Conn.: Negro University Press, 1979. 91, 94
          McDougle, Ivan E. Slavery in Kentucky, 1792-1865. Westport, Conn.: Negro University Press,
          Rose, Willie Lee. Slavery and Freedom New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
          Smith, Julia Floyd. Slavery and Rice Culture in Low Country Georgia, 1750-1861. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1985. 70-71.
          Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Book, A Division of Random House, 1956.
          Penn University Prof Says Zimmerman Let Off Because God Is a ‘White Racist’
          Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, July 15, 2013, 6:19 PM


          University of Pennsylvania religious professor Anthea Butler put blame on God for the Zimmerman verdict. Butler says it’s because God “is a white racist.”
          This woman teaches religion.
          Biz Pac Review reported:

          While those on the left look to place blame for George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, a radical professor said it’s because God is a white racist.
          In an editorial published on Sunday, Anthea Butler, a religious professor at the University of Pennsylvania, proclaimed God is “a white racist god with a problem.”
          “God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in an nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.”
          Butler, who accused Walmart of being sharecroppers and slave owners earlier this year, acts like the country is still in 1950s Mississippi when she said “most good conservative Christians in America think… whatever makes them protected, safe, and secure, is worth it at the expense of the black and brown people they fear.”


          JOHN W. FOUNTAIN

          Last Modified: May 6, 2012

          Imagine Soldier Field beyond capacity, brimming with 63,879 young African-American men, ages 18 to 24 — more than U.S. losses in the entire Vietnam conflict.
          Imagine the University of Michigan’s football stadium — the largest in the U.S. — filled to its limit of 109,901 with black men, age 25 and older. Now add 28,223 more — together totaling more than U.S. deaths in World War I.

          Picture two UIC Pavilions packed with 12,658 Trayvon Martins — black boys, ages 14 to 17 — nearly twice the number of U.S. lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
          Now picture all of them dead. The national tally of black males 14 and older murdered in America from 1976 through 2005, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics: 214,661.
          The numbers tell only part of the story of this largely urban war, where the victims bear an uncanny resemblance to their killers. A war of brother against brother, filled with wanton and automatic gunfire, even in the light of day, on neighborhood streets, where little boys make mud pies, schoolgirls jump rope, where the innocent are caught in the crossfire, where the spirit of murder blows like the wind.

          It is, so far, a ceaseless war in which guns are often the weapon of choice, and the finger on the trigger of the gun pointed at a black male is most often another black male’s.
          The numbers alone are enough to make me cry — to wonder why — we as African Americans will march en masse over one slain by someone who is not black, and yet sit silent over the hundreds of thousands of us obliterated from this mortal world by someone black like us, like me. It is a numbing truth borne out by hard facts:
          From 1980 through 2008, 93 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.
          Translation: For every Trayvon Martin killed by someone not black, nine other blacks were murdered by someone black.

          In 2005, — blacks — accounted for 13 percent of the U.S. population but 49 percent of all homicides. The numbers are staggering, the loss incomprehensible.
          Add to the tally of black males 14 and older slain across the country from 1976 to 2005, another 29,335 (slain from 2006 to 2010), and their national body count rises to 243,996, representing 82 percent of all black homicides for that 35-year period. What also becomes clear is this: We too often have raised killers. And this war is claiming our sons.
          But that’s still not the end of the story. Add to that number 51,892 black females ages 14 and older, plus five whose gender was not identifiable, and the total, not counting children, is 295,893 — more than the combined U.S. losses of World War I, the Vietnam, Korean and Mexican-American wars, the War of 1812 and the American Revolutionary War.

          Is the blood of these sons and daughters somehow less American?
          Two hundred ninety-five thousand eight hundred ninety-three . . .
          Imagine the United Center, Wrigley Field, U.S. Cellular Field and Soldier Field nearly all filled simultaneously with black boys, girls, men and women. Now imagine that twice over. Now imagine them all dead.

          As far as I can see, that’s at least 295,893 reasons to cry. And it is cause enough for reticent churches, for communities, for lackadaisical leaders, for all people — no matter our race, color or creed — to find the collective will and the moral resolve to stamp out this human rights atrocity occurring right under our noses.
          Just imagine the human carnage and the toll to us all if we don’t.

          I can’t. I won’t.

          JOHN W. FOUNTAIN

          • LF, “As far as I can see, that’s at least 295,893 reasons to cry.”

            YOU are an Idiot saying that YOUR croco eyes ARE weeping tears…and 295893 reasons to cry! YOU are going cracky…attacking a greatest person who has ever lived!



      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

      • LF bin Nation of Islam, YOU are a true Muslim!

        Was this donkey STONED to death for being a KARI? If NOT then why NOT?

    • Louis bin Nation of Islam, ……talking DONKEY and YOUR baptism!

      1 Corinthians 1:17(KJV) >17 For Christ sent me NOT to BAPTIZE, but to PREACH the gospel: NOT with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Matthew 28:19(KJV)> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZE them….
      (Jesus said : “BAPTIZE” whereas, Paul says, Jesus told him “NOT TO BAPTIZE”!!!!!

      All the languages developed in a day!
      Genesis 11:6-9 7 Go to, let US GO DOWN, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
      (Wow, what an evil deed!)

      28 And the Lord OPENED the MOUTH of the ASS, and she(DONKEY) said unto Balaam, “WHAT HAVE I DONE UNTO YOU, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”

      Mat 17:3 And,… there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him(Jesus)!!!

      Mat 17:5 And behold a VOICE out of the CLOUD, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;
      Mat 17:27 :go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the FISH that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened HIS(FISH’S) mouth, thou shalt find a PIECE of MONEY.

      Paul’s PERSONAL commands in the Bible!
      1 Cor 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!
      6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
      8 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I SPARE YOU.
      35 And this I speak for your own profit.
      38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better!!!!!!!!!!
      And…the dude says : But she is happier if she so abide, after MY judgment: and I THINK also that I have the Spirit of God.
      (Paul’s PERSONAL words are included in the Bible….why?????)

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