Released, The Movie: Aisha and Muhammad.


Aisha and Muhammad: The Dramatic life of a little child married to the prophet of Islam.Banner-2

As announced in an earlier press release, the movie, “Aisha and Muhammad”, has been released on schedule. The release has been coincided with the US Independence Day on July 4 as a mark of respect to the American victims in the battle against Radical Islam.

The full movie in English can be viewed online from the following website links:

The trailer of the movie, released on 23 June 2014, attracted tremendous interest from viewers to the extent that Youtube, ignoring its well-known commitment to defending freedom of expression, deleted all the trailers from its website. Obviously Youtube is under massive pressure from vested quarters that want to hide the root cause of the gravest problem humanity faces from the house of Islam today.

Coincidentally immediately after I announced the upcoming release of the movie, the Spanish authority, which has been trying hard to condemn me to death by deporting me to my home country Pakistan for my work critical of Islam, has issued an arrest warrant to detain me in order to process my deportation. While my fate remains uncertain, given the mayhem and barbarism occurring around the world in the name of Islam—from my own country to Iraq and Syria, to Nigeria—I am determined to continue exposing the real cause behind all these horrendous afflictions befalling humanity from the house of Islam.

I urge the interested viewers to download the movie and upload in their own accounts in Youtube and other video sharing websites, so that it can be more widely available amidst severe censorship imposed by Youtube with other sites likely to follow suit. If the listed video links are blocked by Youtube and other websites, viewers are advised to visit the www.realislamtv.org or www.islam-watch.org websites for alternative links as we will keep posting the movie on different websites

For queries and interviews about the movie, contact:

Imran Firasat

realislamtv@gmail.com

www.realislamtv.org

22 thoughts on “Released, The Movie: Aisha and Muhammad.

  1. YOUR movie is a hate mongering tool against a particular faith. Islam is NOT barbaric
    but the most beautiful religion in the world today. YOU are a bloody apostate and deserve NO sympathy, according to Muslims. Muslims do NOT portray other religious deities in profanity…then why do YOU grapple in the dark when YOU do NOT understand the religion itself? YOU were NEVER a Muslim in the first place!!

    • Plum, these are idiots. These people hate Islam because they want to hate Islam; nothing else. We shouldn’t waste out time with these jerks.

      • Hi Dear MM, where have YOU been lost? Have missed YOU as it is getting boring without YOU and Lucky bin SATAN…who has changed his colours and become some Louis Farrakhan, the name taken from the Mohammed Elijah religion in America called “Nation of Islam”! This site has nothing against the Quran anymore…or is there?

        • Now just look Plum that the owner of this site is silent on what jews are doing with muslims. isn’t that terrorism?

          • MM, it is all double standards…and that applies as well to Christianity, they all lie as Jesus never said worship me nor did he ever say that he had come to carry away their sins. Christianity is a FARCE!

            IN fact, Jesus of the Bible NEVER EXISTED AS HE WAS A MERE STORY CHARACTER “CREATED” by an anonymous author in the Book according to Matthew. When Muslims respond to the injustices, they are labelled “terrorists”. Who will ever accept mass murders of the innocent?..but see the Western world keeps mum, and that includes Lucky bin SATAN!!

        • DID YOU EVER F–K A WATERMELON, PLUM?

          (3) Third example of Sunni morality –
          SUNNI ‘ULAMA HAVE RULED ON PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH WATERMELONS
          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”.

          COMMENT:

          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?

          SHIA PEN:
          REVEALING THE TRUTH
          Ch 8: Examples of Sunni morality

          • Jesus debunked!!
            1. ‘Jesus’ was a story character “created” in the Book “According to Mathews”. The author of that short book is unknown!! But it can be easily implied from his book that he was a Greek as was Paul and his cronies viz., Mark, Luke, Timothy, James and John!!
            2. How was this book, “Mathews”, compiled?…and information collected by who??
            3. Whoever the author, he managed to dupe the World!!!
            4. This anonymous guy copied verses from the Old Bible of the Jews, distorted many, even changed some. to “make” the prophecies be fulfilled. In fact, in some places he even forgot to mention which Prophet had spoken…of that Prophecy. Approximately, there are 300 instances copied from the Old Testament, which would take lots of space and so I shall quote only a few, okay?
            .
            5(a). The similarity with certain Old Testament passages is very profound.
            (b). According to “Mathews” and thus the Christians, every word can be taken as a Prophecy from the Old Testament
            6. He copied the genealogy list, the Virgin birth, casting out devil with finger of god,
            riding on two donkeys, etc.,… and all the “other” material from 22 books of the
            Old Testament.
            7. The author was a Jew hater and to establish that hate he created “Jesus”….and that his extreme hatred of the Jews is portrayed here, very clearly, when the Jews and not the Romans put him on the cross!!!
            8. Notably interesting is the fact that he does not quote from any of the apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books as found in the “Dead Sea Scrolls”!! Why were those books thrown out like the book of Barnabas?
            9. “New Testament writers have flouted the proper laws of hermeneutics, have been guilty of artificial and rabbinical exegesis, and thus have repeatedly distorted the meaning of the Old Testament passages which they quote”.(http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html)
            10. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.
            11. Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then Joseph’s genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned.
            12. The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.”
            13. The contradiction : born of a virgin against seed from the line of David. Explain!
            14. “Genesis 3:15 says ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed.’ So women can pass on ‘seed’. This is where he got the idea of making a virgin girl pregnant in the beginning of writing his book.
            15. He mentions four women in Jesus’ genealogies who were all adulteresses!
            A. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (copied from Genesis 38:12-19)
            B. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (copied from Joshua 2:1).
            C. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (copied from Ruth 3:1-14)
            D. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (copied from 2 Samuel 11:2-5).
            16. He mentioned these four, impregnated women, to purposely add just one more and that would not make any difference!! Then he copied from Isaiah 7 : 14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”.
            17. Compare : In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called
            the Son of the Most High and will rule on David’s throne forever. This clearly contradicts with Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus’ family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household. Explain!
            18. Mathew’s author misquotes : Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6).
            19. Refer to Isaiah 7:14. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek and also the name would be Immanuel and not Jesus. This name “Jesus” he got from Jesse, the father of David, distorted it to make a connection, of his story character, to David.
            20. Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Copied from Jeremiah 31:15. But the context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.
            21.(Matthew 2:15) has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfilment of prophecy . However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
            22. The author of Matthew searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events to give life to his story character ‘Jesus” to fulfill those “prophecies.”
            23. And finally, he makes the biggest blunder and exposes his work and his character “Jesus”, when he mistook the “comma”(,) for an “and”(+).
            First Refer to where he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Meaning ONE young male donkey. Now compare that to Matthew 21:1-7 Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”. Explain that, as Mathews 21:1-7 does NOT fulfill the Prophecy and that “Jesus” was a mere story character, who never lived in real life!

            Still some try very hard, even by quoting the Quran out of context or distorting verses as well as through misquotations yet the Quran stands unique and the Only best thing on morality can one find on this Earth!!!
            “Jesus” was a mere story character in the Book of Matthew, just like James Bond, Just like Socrates the story hero of Plato! The anonymous author of “Matthew” copied randomly verses from the OT from books such as Psalms, Isaiah, Chronicles, etc and distorted, fabricated, changed and some he took half verses all those which would suit his character. All the writers of the 3 synoptic Gospel, namely Mark, Matthew, Luke and John’s Gospel cooked up the story of Jesus on the order of the Church to be able to dominate the world..to rule the religious as well as non religious.
            The anonymous author of “Matthew” made plenty of mistakes…all beginning from the start! Mark’s author rectified the mistakes and then came “LUKE” who in his own words says this is NOT an inspired work and that he wrote for the Roman governor what he THOUGHT was fit. Later came the Author of “John” and he was certainly NOT the disciple of Jesus but another anonymous author created by the Church. John’s story is total rubbish…as he talks from the angle as if he were Peter’s son in the book of Matthew.
            Now, let us discuss “Saul” bin “Paul” the liar. From Stephen’s stoning we can see that he was a contemporary of Jesus..who was becoming the source of the new religion. How come Paul does NOT seem to know Jesus, his crucifixion, Mary and Jesus’ birth, resurrection? Christianity is a farce and Jesus was created to dominate the world as it is in his name that the christians were able to penetrate other countries, later torturing their leaders, killing many…and the crusades were all based on that story carrot called Jesus!!!
            Jesus never lived in Nazareth as there is NO place as such mentioned anywhere in the OT..The prophecies mentioned in all the books of the New Testament are dubious and NO gospel matches any of the stories!!
            How could a God die for YOUR sins? If god died then why did he resurrect as a HUMAN instead of spirit??
            Huh, there was Word, and that Word used to live with God and the Word was God also.
            So, there were TWO Gods, correct? And how did YOU sneak in the HOLY Ghost dude? Just mentioning a name without ANY worship does NOT make ANY sense!!!!
            Where is this dude called the Holy Ghost and how DO Ghosts become HOLY????

      • SHIA PEN:
        REVEALING THE TRUTH
        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
        SALAFI “ULAMA RULED THAT MASTURBATION (WANKING) IS HALAL
        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”.
        COMMENT:
        The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:
        (AN ARMY OF WANKERS)
        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:
        SUNNI ‘ULAMA LEGITIMISED THE USE OF DILDOS (FEMALE SEX TOYS)
        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”.
        COMMENT:
        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 –
        SUNNI ‘ULAMA HAVE RULED ON PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH WATERMELONS
        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”.
        COMMENT:
        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 –
        A SALAFI WOMAN CAN SUCKLE A SALAFI MAN WITH A BEARD
        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.
        COMMENT:
        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 –
        BESTIALITY CAN BE PERFORMED DURING HAJJ
        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 –
        PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING
        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
        COMMENT:
        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 –
        THE PERMISSIBILITY OF PRAYING BEHIND A DRUNKEN PERSON
        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.
        COMMENTARY:
        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 –
        THE PERMISSIBILITY TO PAY FOR SEX, WITHOUT FEAR OF ISLAMIC PUNISHMENT
        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 –
        THE PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH ONE’S MOTHER
        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
        COMMENTARY
        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 –
        THE “HONOURABLE” TACTIC OF AMR BIN AAS TO SURVIVE IMMINENT DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD
        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”
        COMMENT:
        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.

    • First of all, islam is not a religion but an evil organization for world domination, second islam is not and can`t be a peaceful because in itself is an evil organization. Islam has no fundamental concept of Inalienable Rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Islam does not permit the individual to enjoy the freedoms of action and association characteristic of the Democracy that so many Western cultures currently enjoy today. Islam is a religion in name only because of a reference to “Allah” as their Deity. A well known fact is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that rejects Democracy, personal freedom, and every other religion. The ideals of anti-Semitism and anti-Western Culture run rampant throughout Islam. The Laws of Man are meaningless and have absolutely no relevance in Muslim culture because they are without any direct reference to the Koran or Shariah Law and therefore they have no place in Muslim life. Islamic law/Shariah Law is completely incompatible with Freedom, Democracy, and Liberty, or any other government where the people have an actual voice in government or the will of the people matters.

      • Johnny Cash, so YE followy the PrIncipality of “BE GOODY, DO GOODY”, okay?

        By d way…what YE followy, booty?

      • Johnny Cashy, howy isy Islamy an evily organisationi?
        If I copy a verse from the OT and make up a character, “doing” things according to that verse, and then I say : “This all happened as was said in the scripture”, and quote that copied verse, WHAT would be ANY person’s reaction? Of course to refer to the OT and YOU become satisfied that the prophecy WAS fulfilled. But when reading in CONTEXT in the OT, YOU find that, THAT verse was NOT even a prophecy!!
        What would YOU do?

      • Lucky bin SATAN, Oh yeah…a person who JOINS Islam to DESTROY its very pillars is called an Apostate.
        A Man who converts to Islam, for the purpose of doing mischief~ within the Muslim society~ is NOT considered a Muslim >>> as his evil acts pop-out SOON.
        Thus he was NEVER a “Muslim” in the first place…meaning he had NO belief in Islam from the beginning …and his conversion was a pretense to ulterior motives, his hidden agenda!
        SO, THIS IS “THE F–K CAN ONE BE AN APOSTATE, IF HE WERE NEVER A “MUSLIM” IN THE FIRST PLACE?”
        That is WHY non-Muslims have NOT been able to penetrate Islam and be able to destroy it!

    • CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
      Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Aug. 5, 1990, U.N. GAOR,
      World Conf. on Hum. Rts., 4th Sess., Agenda Item 5, U.N. Doc.
      A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.18 (1993) [English translation].
      WAS HUMPTY DUMPTY A MUSLIM?
      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

      BEFORE YOU READ ALL 25 ARTICLES, IT’S VITAL TO READ ARTICLES 24 and 25 FIRST:
      ARTICLE 24:

      All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
      ARTICLE 25:
      The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
      WHAT THESE 2 ARTICLES ARE SAYING IS THAT THE:
      Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam – Diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects

      HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM
      The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari’ah as its sole source.
      CDHRI declares its purpose to be “general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights”. This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic counterpart of and a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
      HISTORY
      Predominantly Muslim countries, like Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[1]
      The declaration was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights.

      (THIS MOHAMMEDAN HAS NEVER READ THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT)

      CONTENTS
      The Declaration starts by forbidding “any discrimination on the basis of race, color, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations”. It continues on to proclaim the sanctity of life, and declares the “preservation of human life” as “a duty prescribed by the Shariah”. (THIS IS A HUMPTY DUMPTY PHRASE).In addition the CDHRI guarantees “non-belligerents such as old men, women and children”, “wounded and the sick” and “prisoners of war”, the right to be fed, sheltered and access to safety and medical treatment in times of war.
      (Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic and victim of Islam for female genital mutilation, urged those in the West, including states, to unite against tenets of Sharia Law, which call for the punishment she and Ibrahim faced, as they did against South Africa’s apartheid in the 1980s and 1990s.
      “It’s not a dichotomy — it’s not like black and white between having boots on the ground versus doing nothing,” Hirsi Ali said. “Remember apartheid — we stopped it through writing books, writing, through songs, through trade boycotts, through diplomacy. We were united as a — just not America but the West and all moral countries to say it is unacceptable to divide humanity to blacks and whites and what are we seeing with Sharia? We’re seeing it in Brunei. We’re seeing it in Sudan. We know it in our lives, Saudi Arabia and others. On grounds of, you know … we are not taking the positions, the moral positions that we need to and we’re not fighting that moral positions with the tools we have.”)
      The CDHRI gives men and women the “right to marriage” regardless of their race, color or nationality, (but not religion). In addition women are given “equal human dignity”, “own rights to enjoy”, “duties to perform”, “own civil entity”, “financial independence”, and the “right to retain her name and lineage”, though not equal rights in general.

      (MORE MUHAMMAD HUMPTY DUMPTY WORDS)

      The Declaration makes the husband responsible for the social and financial protection of the family. The Declaration gives both parents the rights over their children, and makes it incumbent upon both of them to protect the child, before and after birth. The Declaration also entitles every family the “right to privacy”. It also forbids the demolition, confiscation and eviction of any family from their residence. Furthermore, should the family get separated in times of war, it is the responsibility of the State to “arrange visits or reunions of families “.
      (In ‘The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law’ by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) and published in English translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in 1994 under the section, “The Rules of Warfare”:
      “O.913 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”
      The implication of the marriage annulment is that the women are now available as sexual slaves or wives.
      Not that ISNA and Al-Azhar should be surprised by this. The ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council of North America approved Reliance with then President Taha Jabir al ‘Alwani calling it an “eminent work of Islamic jurisprudence.” The Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy certified that the manual, “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni school (ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a).”
      Nor is Reliance’s interpretation alone in understanding Islamic law to permit sexual slavery. As Ibn Kathir (d.1373) in his highly regarded Tafsir (exegeses) of the Koran, explains, the source of this understanding is Quran Sura 4:25:
      “Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.”
      So to sadly, to answer Wolfe’s question, “Why are women spoils of war in Nigeria?”
      Because Shariah law requires it.)
      (WOMENS RIGHTS)
      (The women’s rights catastrophe in the Muslim world has reached America. Islamist groups and preachers in the U.S. are directly legitimizing the abuse of women or indirectly through advocacy of sharia law, and Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, must hold them accountable.
      Exhibit A is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a group based in California that fashions itself as an authoritative voice of matters of Islamic law. It issues fatwas, or religious declarations, in response to questions from Muslims seeking guidance. Its website has a fatwa bank that will shock anyone concerned about women’s rights.
      A fatwa published in 2010 justifies the practice of female genital mutilation:
      “Some extremists from the West and their devout followers in the Muslim world would like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM) … all of their propaganda about female circumcision is no more than bigotry.”
      One fatwa published in 2007 justifies marital rape:
      “As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses.”
      One reason AMJA advises Muslims against joining law enforcement is because they “might have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her.” Another reason is the possibility of “gender mixing.”
      AMJA is not a fringe organization whose influence is limited to the walls of its headquarters.
      Its Secretary-General is Salah As-Sawy. He is also a co-founder ofAmerican Open University and was its Vice President from 1995 to 2004. He is also a co-founder and President of Mishkah Islamic University of North America.
      AMJA’s Fatwa Committee includes Dr. Muwaffak Al-Ghaylany, the President of the League of Imams in North America and Imam of the Islamic Center of Grand Blank City in Michigan.
      Another AMJA Fatwa Committee member is Dr. Waleed Al-Maneese, Vice President of the Islamic University of Minnesota and president of the board of trustees of Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center. He is also on the board of trustees of the North American Imams Federation.
      These are just four AMJA officials. Its website’s “Our Experts” section lists 47 preachers around the world, mostly residing in America. It also separately lists 41 AMJA members.
      Then there are the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in America.
      An online article titled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” utilizes the wisdom of Muzammil Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America.
      “[I]n some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely,” Siddiqi is quoted as saying.)
      The Declaration prohibits to force anybody “to change his religion to another religion or to atheism”, but it gives the individual no freedom to change his religion or belief.

      (FORCED CONVERSATION)
      QUESTION:
      Are Muslims permitted to force others into accepting Islam?
      SUMMARY ANSWER:
      Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.
      THE QURAN
      Qur’an (8:39) – “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran
      Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad handed down – hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -“Let there be no compulsion in religion…”.
      Qur’an (9:5) “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them…” Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. See below. Islam sanctions violence as a means of coercing religion.
      Qur’an (9:11) – (Continued from above) “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion” This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.
      Quran (9:56-57) – “And they swear by Allah that they are most surely of you, and they are not of you, but they are a people who are afraid (of you). If they could find a refuge or cave or a place to enter into, they would certainly have turned thereto, running away in all haste.” This refers to people living among Muhammad’s own people who may not be true believers, but have to pretend to be in order to survive. They have no safe refuge to which to escape the Muslims. If Islam were a religion of peace, then why the fear?
      Qur’an (2:193) – “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.” The key phrase is to fight until “religion be only for Allah.”
      Qur’an (3:83) – “Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has sub mitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” So much for the earlier verse (2:256) stating that there is “no compulsion in religion”.
      HADITHS
      Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.” The first part of this condition is the Shahada, or profession of faith in Islam. Violence is sanctioned until the victims embrace Muhammad’s religion.
      Sahih Muslim (19:4294) – “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” Osama bin Laden echoes this order from his prophet: “Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam … . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (source: The al-Qaeda Reader p. 19-20)
      Bukhari (8:387) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'”
      Bukhari (53:392) – “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
      Bukhari (2:24) – “Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
      Bukhari (60:80) – “The Verse:–‘You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.’ means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”
      Bukhari (60:40) – “…:And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah).” ‘Affliction’ of Muslims is explicitly defined here being a condition in which others worship a different god other than Allah. Muslims are commanded to use violence to ‘rectify’ the situation.
      Bukhari (59:643) – “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!” Words of a military leader that Muhammad sent on an expedition with the mission of destroying a local religion in Yemen.
      Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959 – Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. The text goes on to say that Khalid taught the al-Harith about Islam after their “conversion,” proving that it was based on fear of slaughter rather than a free and intelligent decision.
      Ibn Kathir (Commenting on Quran 2:256, which says “let there be no compulsion in religion”) – “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the jizya, they should be fought till they are killed.”
      Additional Notes:
      Following his flirtation with preaching relative peace and tolerance at Mecca – a 13-year disaster that netted less than 100 followers (mostly friends and family) – Muhammad changed tactics during his last ten years. Once he obtained the power to do so, he began forcing others into accepting his claims about himself at the point of a sword. In many places in the Hadith, he tells his followers that he has been commanded by Allah to fight unbelievers until they profess their faith in Islam (the Shahada).
      During these later years, Muhammad did not seem at all bothered by conversions that were made under obvious duress. These included that of his sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. According to Muslim historians, when Abu Sufyan went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was ordered instead to embrace Islam. The exact words spoken to him in Muhammad’s presence were, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head” – (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814). He did.
      The entire city of Mecca followed suit, even though the residents and leaders detested Muhammad and had resisted his preaching from the beginning. Most of them “converted” to Islam the day that he marched through their city with an army so dominant that little resistance was offered. Only the most credulous of believers would think that the city’s religious epiphany just happened to coincide with the sword at their necks.
      Meccans who would not change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city following that last Haj (Quran 9:5). The Christians and Jews living in Arabia at the time suffered the same fate on Muhammad’s deathbed order. They were given the choice of either accepting Islam or being forced off their land (Sahih Muslim 19:4366).
      The Jews at Khaybar were not at war with Muhammad when he ordered his warriors to attack them. Even his faithful son-in-law, Ali, whom he chose to head the mission, was somewhat perplexed as to the pretext on which they were to assault this peaceful farming community so far away from Medina:
      Muhammad said: ‘Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory’, and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: ‘Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?’ Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ‘Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger’ (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)
      The Jews were caught entirely be surprise, of course. Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves by the prophet of Islam to his men. Muhammad even took a woman for himself – after ordering the death of her husband.
      Before he died, Muhammad sent his warriors against pagan Arab tribes, such as the al-Harith, demanding that they either convert to Islam or be wiped out (naturally, they opted for the Religion of Peace). He cursed Christians and Jews to the very end (Bukhari 8:427).
      According to al-Shafi in “The Ordinances of the Quran”, Muhammad “defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook.” Muslims are taught to follow in the way of their prophet. A devotee under the reign of Umar put it this way “Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute)” (Bukhari 53:386).
      Likewise, Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s closest companion and immediate successor, pressed Jihad aggressively in foreign territory against people who did not want war and were of no threat. In a letter sent to the Persians, the caliph bluntly stated, “You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don’t, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life.”
      Down through the centuries Muslims have forced Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans and others to accept Islam, either by bluntly offering them death as an alternative, or by making their lives so miserable (ie. taxes, denial of rights…) that the conquered convert to Islam under the strain.
      Forced conversions persist among extremists. Recently in Egypt, a Christian girl was kidnapped and told that she would be raped if she did not convert. In 2010, an 11-year-old Christian boy in Pakistan was kept enslaved in chains (1, 2) by his Muslim landlord, who proudly told the world that he would liberate the lad if he embraced Islam.
      Neither of these examples of attempted forced conversion was condemned by Islamic organizations, even in the West. From the Muslim perspective, the victim in each case still technically retains the choice to convert. In fact, some even lauded the Pakistani slave-owner for being magnanimous in offering freedom and debt relief to his subject for embracing Islam.
      Since Muslims believe so sincerely that their religion is truth, they often can’t help but feel, on some level, that forced conversion is more of a favor done to the subject – a case of the end justifying the means. As Muhammad said, “Allah marvels at those who are brought to paradise in chains” (Bukhari 52:254).
      After the high-profile kidnapping and forced conversion of hundreds of Christian girls by Boko Haram in 2014, a Muslimah in the UK famously proclaimed that they had actually been “liberated” from the “shackles of slavery.”
      It is also important to note the critical role that jizya plays in Islamic conversion. Paying a “tax” to Muslims is the only avenue of escape for those who don’t want to leave their religion, according to the Qur’an. This answers the question of why Muhammad, his companions, and subsequent Muslim armies didn’t force everyone to convert to Islam.
      As Muhammad realized with the Jews of Khaybar, who were allowed to keep their farming community provided they directed the profits of their labor to him, it was often more lucrative to leave local economies in place rather than killing every male who wouldn’t convert. This became the loose rule for the Muslim armies that swept across Christian, Jewish, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist lands in the decades that followed. The money that was collected was then used to further Islamic expansion.
      As Muhammad put it: “My sustenance is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya” (another translation: “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.”) The hadith has been quoted by al-Qaeda and is found in the original version of Bukhari and Ahmad (5114 or 4869, depending on the translation).
      In fairness, Muslims have generally tended to follow verse 2:256 of the Quran, which states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” and have not felt it right to force others into embracing Islam. However, this does not change the fact that verse 2:256 was clearly abrogated by later verses, particularly in Sura 9 – otherwise the practice of killing apostates if they do not recant their chose faith would not have become an acceptable part of Islamic law.
      Another point to keep in mind is that in Islam, practice is more important than belief. Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they say they believe in Allah (or pay the Jizya), but there seems to be a tacit understanding that belief itself can’t be forced (ie. “there is no compulsion in religion”). Nevertheless, once a subjugated individual outwardly converts to Islam under the strain of taxes and discrimination, they are not allowed to recant upon penalty of death. Their children must also be raised Muslim. And, if they aren’t, then it is a sign of apostasy – subject to death… This is how Islam managed to spread so successfully within conquered populations to ratios in the high 90th percentiles over native religion.
      One last point of interest is that Muhammad’s later practice of ordering people to profess their belief in him proved disastrous both for his own family and the legacy of his religion. By the time of his death, his empire included a great many people and tribes who had accepted his rule merely to avoid war and slavery. Many of them wanted out after he died, and several wars were immediately fought, resulting in thousands of deaths and cementing Islam’s legacy of violent intolerance.
      Incredibly, even Muhammad’s sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan may have gotten the last laugh. So ambitious was the prophet of Islam that he accepted his former foe’s outward profession of allegiance (at the point of a sword) in order to expand his empire. Yet, it was Abu Sufyan’s own children who ultimately benefited – at the expense of Muhammad’s family.
      Abu Sufyan’s son, Muawiyah, inherited the empire after defeating Muhammad’s adopted son, Ali. He also poisoned Hasan, one of the prophet’s two favorite grandsons. Abu Sufyan’s grandson, Yazid, became the next caliph and promptly had the head of Muhammad’s other favorite grandson, Hussein, brought to him on a platter.
      Such are the perils of forcing others to say that you are a prophet when they prefer to believe otherwise.)
      The Declaration protects each individual from arbitrary arrest, torture, maltreatment and/or indignity. Furthermore, no individual is to be used for medical or scientific experiments. It also prohibits the taking of hostages of any individual “for any purpose” whatsoever. Moreover, the CDHRI guarantees the presumption of innocence; guilt is only to be proven through a trial in “which he [the defendant] shall be given all the guarantees of defence”. The Declaration also forbids the promulgation of “emergency laws that would provide executive authority for such actions”.
      THE MYTH
      MUHAMMAD NEVER KILLED CAPTIVES
      THE TRUTH
      Islamic terrorists take and execute hostages on an almost daily basis. So much so, that mainstream Muslims rarely even bother to report. Often we are assured that this practice has “nothing to do with Islam” because Muhammad never executed prisoners of war, or anyone else taken hostage…
      Except that he did.
      Following the Battle of Badr, several defenseless Meccans were slaughtered by Muhammad’s companions. These included a man named Umayya and his young son, who were taken prisoner by a Muslim (a former friend who tried to protect them), but were then set upon by a mob before they could be escorted to safety:
      “I said (would you attack) my prisoners? But… The people formed a ring around us as I was protecting him. Then a man drew his sword and cut off his son’s foot so that he fell down and Umayya [the boy’s father] let out a cry such as I have never heard… They hewed them to pieces with their swords until they were dead.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 449)
      Another heartwarming account of Islamic chivalry during the same battle concerns Abu Jahl, one of Muhammad’s arch-enemies at Mecca. He met his death as he lay defenseless. In this case, two Muslims took the opportunity to administer the death blow:
      Mu’awwidh passed Abu Jahl as he lay there helpless and smote him until he left him at his last gasp. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 451)
      Another Muslim named Abdullah then came by and put his foot on Abu Jahl’s neck and taunted him before decapitating him:
      Then I cut off his head and brought it to the apostle saying, “This is the head of the enemy of Allah, Abu Jahl.”… I threw his head before the apostle and he gave thanks to Allah. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 451).
      Apparently these companions of Muhammad were unaware that “Islam is against” killing captives. But who could really blame them? Not only did the prophet of Islam praise them for the slaughter, he also ordered the death of another captive brought before him.
      Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt pled for his life:
      “When the apostle ordered him to be killed, Uqba said, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” [Muhammad’s reply] “Hell.” The man was put to death. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 458)
      Other captives were ransomed, but Uqba received special treatment because he had mocked Muhammad at Mecca. His crime was that he had thrown the entrails of a dead animal on Muhammad’s back as he was praying, to the amusement of other Meccans (Muslim 4422, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 277). The prophet of Islam determined that this fraternity prank was worth killing over, and it became the first of several other occasions in which people were slain on Muhammad’s order merely for mocking him.
      Interestingly, it appears that Muhammad regretted not killing all of his captives, instead of ransoming a few. Verse 8:67 of the Qur’an was “revealed” in the aftermath of Badr and says “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.”
      The prophet of Islam went on to execute many other captives, most notoriously the 800 men and boys taken prisoner at Qurayza. His men also brutally murdered an elderly woman named Umm Qirfa after taking her prisoner following a raid on the tribe of Banu Fazara. According to al-Tabari she was killed by, “putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until thy rent her in two.” (The woman’s daughter was then doled out to one of her Muslim killers).
      While it is common to hear Muslims claim that their religion is “against” killing hostages, the actual history of Islam proves that nothing could be further from the truth
      The Declaration also emphasizes the “full right to freedom and self-determination”, and its opposition to enslavement, oppression, exploitation and colonialism. The CDHRI declares the rule of law, establishing equality and justice for all. The CDHRI also guarantees all individuals the “right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs”. The CDHRI also forbids any abuse of authority.
      The Declaration grants individuals the right to express their opinion freely. It encourages them to propagate that which is right and good. However, it forbids the misuse of this right in order to “violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets”, “undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate”, “arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred” or commit an “incitement to any form of racial discrimination”.
      (THESE ARE MORE HUMPTY DUMPTY PHRASES)
      [WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS:
      YOU CANNOT ISLAM AS AN INSTITUTION OF MISOGNEY
      The UN recently disclosed survivor accounts of jihadist brutality, among them an adolescent girl who had been raped repeatedly by Islamic State soldiers before being sold at market. The ISIS caliphate has reportedly established an outlet where enslaved women and girls are fitted with price tags and sold to jihadists.
      Women who disobey Islamic State’s dictates are routinely murdered. A female doctor who participated in a strike against wearing the niqab was killed for her disobedience. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights reports 150 women, including pregnant women, were slaughtered in Fallujah because they refused to marry jihadists.
      Some captured women are resorting to suicide to escape sexual enslavement. A 19-year-old girl hanged herself after being captured with 20 other girls, as young as 10, and instructed by jihadists to bathe and put on dance costumes.
      Yazidis have reported that 3500 women and girls are being held captive by caliphate fighters. Open slave markets selling dozens of women and girls are frequented by jihadists who view slavery as Koranically derived and Islamically correct. Their view is supported in Dabiq magazine, where Islamic State lauds a medieval-style system of institutionalised female slavery under the caliphate: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted.”
      In the pamphlet, Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves, Islamic State sets out rules for its caliphate slave system. Translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, it concludes that while Islamist scholars demur on some matters of slavery, there is firm consensus that “unbelieving” women and girls are legal chattel. The fatuous pejorative “unbeliever” is applied to people of all faiths except for Muslims, and Muslim men are given licence to rape prepubescent girls ¬captured in war.
      The institute also has exposed the depraved misogyny of foreign fighters in Islamic State. Online conversations between French and British jihadists reveal their amusement at the sexual enslavement of women, one writing: “They are idolaters, so it’s normal that they are slaves, in Mosul they are closed in a room and cry, and one of them committed suicide LOL.”
      While most jihadist slavers are Syrian and Iraqi, there have been several reports citing the involvement of foreign fighters. Amnesty International reports that four women and girls were imprisoned by two Australians of Lebanese origin, one of whom shared a home with his wife and children.
      Australian Mohamed Elomar reportedly shared his virulent ¬hatred of women in a tweet offering a Yazidi “slave girl” at a price of $2500 with the execrable comment: “don’t worry brothers she won’t dissapoint (sic)”.
      Despite the genocidal misogyny of Islamic State, between 200 and 300 women have left the West to join the group. An Australian woman, Zehra Duman, left last week to marry a jihadist after reportedly spouting hatred of non-Muslims on social media.
      Islamic State women have formed a morality militia, al-Khansaa, to conduct border patrol checks and enforce sharia law. According to the International Business Times, the Syrian branch comprises 50 women, many of whom are wives of immigrant ¬jihadists from Britain, France, Morocco and Tunisia.
      The sharia militia is sadistic, committing violence against women who do not submit to sharia law. The militia also operates the brothels where enslaved women and girls are raped by ¬jihadists. Researchers from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation believe at least four English Muslims have joined the sharia brigade. Among them is Khadijah Dare, whom London’s The Telegraph reports celebrating the decapitation of James Foley and inciting violence on Twitter: “You Christians all need beheading with a nice blunt knife and stuck on the railings at Raqqa … Come here I’ll do it for you!”
      Despite widespread condemnation of Islamic State violence the fact is its constitutional ¬ideology and beliefs, including the validity of theocratic sharia law, are shared by Islamist regimes and some Western-based organisations. On its website, the Islamic Association of Australia provides advice on zakah, a mandatory form of sharia taxation whose proceeds are purportedly given to charity. The advice illustrates the considerable conflict between even apparently beneficent principles of sharia and the foundational values of modern Western society in polytheism, freedom of belief and human equality.
      The IAA advises that charity must be paid only to Muslims, excluding “non-religious sects or institutions”. Its advice on slaves is of even greater concern. The ¬association stipulates that zakah can be used for “ransoming of slaves” and that all Muslims, ¬including “free and slave”, must pay it.
      A succession of bloody civil wars and revolutions across the Western world ensured the establishment of secular law and the prohibition of slavery. Why then would an organisation in the 21st-century West presume the ¬existence of slavery, counselling the treatment of slaves in a sharia-derived practice?
      The idea that secular liberal democracies should tolerate the return of theocratic governance and jurisprudence under sharia law is becoming manifest. In Britain, the Law Society established guidelines last year that effectively enshrined sharia as legal practice, introducing sharia-compliant wills that allowed bequests to Muslims only and denied women an equal share of inheritance.
      Caroline Cox, a Tory peer appointed by Margaret Thatcher, is fighting to prevent the return of theocracy to Britain and said of the sharia-compliant wills:
      “This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”
      Despite the problematic nature of Islamism, demonstrated by its extreme manifestation in Islamic State, many Australian universities have courses on sharia finance and law, while Muslim student associations across Western colleges frequently demand that critics of Islamism are ¬censored.
      And despite Islamic State’s genocidal misogyny, many people wonder why the feminist response has been so muted. Brandeis University recently withdrew its offer of an honorary degree to Islamist critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali after the Muslim Students Association joined with academics and the Council on American-Islamic Relations to petition against her. In its letter to the university president, CAIR denounced her as a “notorious Islamophobe”.
      The University of Massachusetts censored a film critical of Islamist practices, Honour Diaries, after it received a complaint from CAIR calling it Islamophobic.
      The result was the silencing of Muslim women who were trying to expose the harms of honour killings, ¬female genital mutilation and forced marriage in Islamist contexts.
      Islamic State is betting that once the caliphate has been cleansed of “unbelievers” and the blood has stopped running, when the dissenters have been silenced and the world has moved on, it will claim and win recognition as a legitimate state.
      If the West continues to capitulate to Islamist ideology, allowing the erosion of the liberal democratic state and core freedoms to pacify theocrats, it will have little choice when the caliphate comes knocking on the UN door but to open it.]
      The CDHRI concludes that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah, which is the declaration’s sole source.
      The CDHRI declares “true religion” to be the “guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity”. It also places the responsibility for defending those rights upon the entire Ummah.

      CRITICISM
      The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects, most notably in that the former unambiguously recognizes only those human rights that are in accordance with Sharia.[2]
      Article 24 of the declaration states:
      “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” Article 19 also says: “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.”
      The role of Islamic law as a sole source of legal opinion is confirmed by the Article 25, which asserts that “The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”.
      The CDHR underscores its basis in the way of life of the Muslim society — Ummah, which is described as the best community and as playing a “civilizing and historical role”.
      Almost always where the CDHRI refers to human rights, it makes a qualification that those rights must be exercised in accordance with Sharia. Thus, Article 22 restricts freedom of speech to those expressions of it that are not in contravention of the Islamic law:
      “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.”
      Similarly, the right to hold public office is contingent upon such right being in accordance with Sharia. [2]
      The CDHRI has been criticized for falling short of the international human rights standards by not upholding the fundamentality of freedom of religion. [3]
      Article 5 prohibits to impose any restrictions on marriage stemming from “race, color or nationality”, notably excluding religion from the list, so that men and women may be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion.
      However, in Sharia law this is due to the fact that it forbids men to attempt to forcefully (by any means) convert their non-Muslim wives to Islam, while there is no such guarantee for Muslim women should they choose to marry non-Muslim men.
      Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of affirming the superiority of men.[4]
      In the Article 6, women are guaranteed equal dignity, but not equality in other matters. The article also puts upon the husband the responsibility to maintain welfare of the family, while no similar obligation is placed upon the wife. Finally, it makes no mention of the widespread practice of having multiple wives in some Islamic countries.
      Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticized the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus, on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women.
      He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the “Islamic Shari’a (Law)” to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[1]
      Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (English text)
      References
      1 Littman, David. “Universal Human Rights and ‘Human Rights in Islam'”. Midstream, February/March 1999
      2 Mathewson Denny, Frederick. “Muslim Ethical Trajectories in the Contemporary World” in Religious Ethics, William Schweiker, ed. Blackwell Publishers, 2004. ISBN 0-631-21634-0, p.272
      3 Kazemi, Farouh. “Perspectives on Islam and Civil Society” in Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism and Conflict, Sohail H. Hashmi, ed. Princeton University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-691-11310-6, p.50
      4 Rhona, Smith. “Textbook on International Human Rights”, Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 1-84174-301-1, p.195

  2. Christian Countries caused the WW1 and WW2 ~ 98 Christian countries fought in the FIRST and SECOND world wars…..killing over 90 million people…annihilating the innocent!
    USA-Spain(1898) : Spanish war
    USA-Iraq (1991) : Gulf war
    USA-Bosnian(1995) : Bosnian War
    USA-Afghanistan (2001-present)…..

    The above is a record of the few that only the USA fought….but is there any Islamic country waging wars on others and killing thousands as the Western world does?

    • MUHAMMAD: ISLAM’S CHIEF TERRORIST

      The actions of Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world are well known. Islamic terrorists have bombed and destroyed buildings, planes, and vehicles. Additionally, during the last 20 years, Muslim terrorists have targeted and murdered tens of thousands of men and women, including children. All over the world, in Kenya, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, France, South America and America, etc., Muslim terrorists have attacked and murdered those they felt were a threat or hindrance to their purpose. No one has been spared by these treacherous people.

      Not surprisingly, examination of the web sites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature.

      Why are these groups Islamic? What does the religion of Islam have to do with terrorism? Is there a link between the two? How do these groups justify murdering civilians based upon Islamic values? Are terrorism and murder actually allowed under Islam?

      This examines the basis for Islamic terrorism found within Islam. Starting with Muhammad and reviewing his teachings and his actions, and then surveying what other Muslims have taught, the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism will be examined.

      NOTES
      1. My comments or source references will be in [ ] brackets. Other writers comments will be in the ( ) parentheses.
      2. When I talk about terrorist actions, I am talking about motive and action. Crime exists in every society, and I am not including all crimes as examples of terrorism. I am focusing on the violent actions Muslims carry out in Islam’s name. For example, in Egypt some years ago, a Muslim man murdered an American women. He killed her then robbed her. His motive was greed and not the furtherance of Islam. I would not call that an Islamic terrorist action. On the other hand, Muslims who carry out bombings, like the ones in Kenya and Tanzania – in which hundreds of innocents died, do so because they feel they are attacking Islamic enemies and have Allah’s sanction to do so. That is an Islamic terrorist action.

      Additionally, there are many kinds of terrorists who engage in violence. There are political terrorists operating in South America, there are terrorists who murder doctors who perform abortion. There are Communist terrorists, capitalist terrorists, right wing terrorists, left wing terrorists, etc. In America, there are gangs that operate like terrorists in the streets. However, in this writing, I am focusing on terrorism based upon what Muhammad taught and did. I am focusing on Muslims, who for the sake of Islam, commit violent acts of terrorism. However, I want all my readers to know that I am fully aware there are many non-Muslim terrorists operating in the world. Some of these other terrorists are every bit as vicious as Muslim terrorists.
      3. A “terrorist” is defined as “one who engages in acts of terrorism”. “Terrorism” is defined as “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

      MUHAMMAD’S ACTIONS AND TEACHINGS
      When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam he was not violent. If anything, he was more like Jesus or Gandhi. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas – Islam – and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Some of Muhammad’s followers were tortured. Things were so bad for him and his few followers that he sent many of them to Abyssinia [Ethiopia] for refuge. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Yathrib [Medina], where some members of two Arab tribes wanted Muhammad to be their prophet.

      BEGINNING OF MUHAMMAD’S VIOLENCE
      Just prior to Muhammad’s leaving for Medina, he received a “revelation” allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him. The following is from “The Life of Muhammad”, page 212-213, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasulallah”, a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar [1].

      “THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT
      The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

      When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.

      ……[a] The meaning is “I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them.” The God sent down to him: “Fight them so that there be no more seduction,” [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. “And the religion is God’s,”, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

      [Note: two passages from the Qur’an are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193]
      Two critical points here:

      (1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan’s religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this “revelation” and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.

      (2) At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those that do not worship Allah. When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Muhammad’s departure, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Muhammad was finally given permission to fight back.

      The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure. In other words, the quoted passage is an apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq’s part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad that in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 194].

      In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any “revelations” to fight at that time. Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad’s lap and just as in Adolph Hitler’s case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only until he had a following that could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly “Allah” gave Muhammad his “revelation” to fight. Muhammad’s circumstances changed, and Muhammad’s Allah changed with them. Muhammad went from being only a “warner” to being an aggressor.

      MUHAMMAD’S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS

      After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I’ll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist. The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad’s command to his followers to “kill any Jew that comes under your power”. From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

      “The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?” Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.”

      This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996:
      Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

      This murder was committed upon Muhammad’s command. Note that this Muslim murderer would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Muhammad was no better than a bigoted criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler did this. And, this is what the Serbs did to the Kosovan Muslims. Muhammad’s command to murder Jews puts him in the same category as Milosovic, Hitler, and others who have persecuted Jews throughout history. A quote from an Islamic scholar – Wensinck writes in his, “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina” [2], page 113:
      “It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad’s most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah’s conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures.”…..Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.”

      This incident is also documented in Tabari’s History [3], page 97 of volume 7. This shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, those who even had good relations with Muslims, murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish. There was no justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Muhammad’s followers. These actions were the work of Muhammad’s terrorists committing murder.
      The second terrorist incident involves another one of Muhammad’s requests: this one for his men to murder an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years. Afak had urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad. From Guillaume, op cit., page 675:
      SALIM B. UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK

      Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:
      “Long have I lived but never have I seen
      An assembly or collection of people
      More faithful to their undertaking
      And their allies when called upon
      Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
      Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
      A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
      “Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things.
      Had you believed in glory or kingship
      You would have followed Tubba
      [NOTE: the Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part of what is present Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]
      The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:
      You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad! [Muhammad]
      By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
      A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying
      “Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!”
      Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
      Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

      Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa’d, Volume 2, [4], page 32:

      Then occurred the “sariyyah” [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad]. Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, “I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him.
      From a contemporary Muslim scholar – Ali Dashti’s “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, [5], page 100:

      “Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.”

      Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:

      “Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax.”

      REVIEW
      Here another man was murdered upon Muhammad’s command. This man was 120 years old. He was no physical threat to Muhammad and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or the Muslims. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, there was no dialogue with Abu Afak; it was just an outright murder of another one of Muhammad’s critics. Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and leave Muhammad. Afak found that Muhammad’s sayings were strange and dictatorial. He chided the Arabs that put their faith in Muhammad. Muhammad heard of this and viewed the 120 year old man as a threat to his credibility, not to his life. Nowhere does it say that Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet for speaking his mind, for the benefit of his friends, this man was murdered by Muhammad.

      The last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya’s verse reveals something though:
      “Though I knew whether it was man or jinn Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).”

      This statement displays that the Muslims knew exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder that they were committing upon Muhammad’s request. They wanted to keep it secret, they wanted to hide their evil deeds from the populace at large. That’s why Umama said he wouldn’t reveal who murdered Afak.

      When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. How would an Iraqi be treated if he spoke out about Saddam? Amnesty International just reported that over 1500 political prisoners were executed in Iraq in one year. Or take the Ayatollah Khomenni. His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad’s methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.
      The third incident involves Muhammad’s request for his men to murder a women named Asma b. Marwan. Quoting from Guillaume, pages 675, 676.

      UMAYR B. ADIYY’S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN

      “She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:
      “I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
      and Auf and B. Al-Khazraj.
      You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
      One not of Murad or Madhhij.
      Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
      Like a hungry man waiting for a cook’s broth?
      Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
      And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?”
      Hassan b. Thabit answered her:
      “Banu Wa’il and B. Waqif and Khatma
      Are inferior to B. Al-Khazraj.
      When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
      For death is coming.
      She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
      Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
      Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
      And incurred no guilt thereby.”

      When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people.
      Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.” {1} The note reads “Two tribes of Yamani origin.”
      And from Ibn Sa’d’s, “Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir” [op cit] volume 2, page 31.

      “SARIYYAH OF UMAYR IBN ADI”

      Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, “basir” (the seeing).

      DISCUSSION

      Let’s sum this up and put it in perspective. Muhammad had al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit killed. This upset Abu Afak, so he spoke out against it. So, likewise, Muhammad had Abu Afak murdered. This offended Asma b. Marwan and she spoke out against that evil deed. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had said, he had her killed also. At first glance, this order to kill Asma might seem justifiable. Asma was calling for someone to kill Muhammad. It is understandable for Muhammad to be bothered by that.
      But let’s look deeper at the event and examine the context of Asma’s relationship to her tribe.

      (1) First of all, Asma has seen Muhammad in action. She had seen him for what he was, a cold blooded murderer. Of course she spoke out against a murderer. Second, her tribe was not under Muhammad’s rule. Perhaps they had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. Either way, this women was free to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and if Muhammad thought that she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her tribe’s leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or dealt with the situation.

      (2) What’s more noteworthy about this event is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said “Two goats won’t butt their head about her”, meaning no one will care about her death. (Well except her children and her family). Also note, that there were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her. The point is this: if no one really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her people also knew about Muhammad having Abu Afak murdered, and they didn’t care about that either. Even in that light, no one would take her serious enough to listen to her urgings to murder Muhammad, who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words. The bottom line is that Asma b. Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Muhammad. She didn’t scare him, she was not the leader of her tribe, and she had little or no influence. She was little more than a nuisance to him. And one wonders why Muhammad didn’t kill her himself? It was always easier for Muhammad to have someone else do his killing.

      Put the shoe on the other foot. Throughout the Middle East, there are Muslims who call America the Great Satan. These Muslims have called for the violent destruction of America. Frequently great crowds have gathered to chant “death to America, or death to one of its presidents.” At times these people have even murdered Americans. Now, if America, or its president, were to use Muhammad’s standards, they would engage in killing multitudes Muslims, because Muslims criticized America. America could justify its action by appealing to Muhammad’s standards of treating those who criticized him. But we know that the chanting of a crowd of hot-heads does not necessitate the use of violence against them. There are better ways to deal with critics and criticisms. Frequently, in the passion of youth, people do and say things they don’t intend to act out, or are not able to carry out. Given time, people can change, and pursue peaceful dialog. But if one applied Muhammad’s standards, American would be justified in bombing Tehran; Israel would be justified in wiping out hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims.
      The only conclusion is that this lady troubled Muhammad and he wanted her silenced. Again, like Abu Afak, she was murdered in the night while she slept. What type of people murder those that sleep? Criminals!

      ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

      (1) What alarms me the most about Islam is its disposition to violence and use of violence as a standard of God’s will. Umayr is a perfect example of this. Here is a Muslim man, a friend of Muhammad’s, acting upon Muhammad’s request and going into a woman’s home under the cover of night. He comes upon the women, sleeping in her bed with her child, and murders her by plunging a sword through her body.
      Afterwards, Muhammad tells the man that he has “helped God and his apostle”. If Allah were really threatened by this woman, I think He could have killed her Himself, don’t you? Does God need men to sneak around in the night and murder sleeping women?

      (2) What kind of religion is Islam really? Soon after Umayr murdered Asma, he went to her family and mocked them! He was laughing in their faces that he had murdered their mother and that they were powerless to do anything about it! Here is the quote again:
      “She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said,

      “I have killed bint Marwan,
      O sons of Khatma.
      Withstand me if you can;
      don’t keep me waiting.”

      (3) Finally, similar to observation #1, look at the power of Islam. Here is the quote:
      “That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma….. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”

      So then, the power of Islam is to go about and murder sleeping women in the night, and get away with it? Does “might make right” ring true in Islam? Is it “he who has the biggest sword is from Allah? The only people I know who respect that kind of power are criminals. Criminals who go out in the night and murder people while they sleep. We know that there are good and bad in all religions, but this case is different. This event reflects upon the man who started Islam: Islam is built upon Muhammad’s words and deeds. We see here that Muhammad had a woman brutally murdered. She was killed because she spoke out against him, and she was merely a nuisance.

      The fourth incident involves a Muslim man who murdered his own slave. From the Hadith of Abu Dawud [6]. Book 38, Number 4348:
      Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

      He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

      He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

      Here we see here that Muhammad allowed people to murder others just for insulting him. Here a slave women, who was used as a concubine by her Muslim master, paid for her criticism of Muhammad with her life. Note here that one man murdered his own slave, who was the mother of two of his children! A slave lady made fun of Muhammad and was brutally murdered and that action received Muhammad’s sanction. Now then, was that slave a threat? Were Muslims going to leave Islam because of a slave women’s criticisms? Of course not! Muhammad could not long tolerate any personal criticism, he didn’t want his credibility undermined, so he allowed his followers to murder anyone who expressed different views. Oh, by the way, before we move on, let me continue to quote from Abu Dawud. The note #3800 states:

      “This shows that even if a Jew of any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet he will be killed. This is held by al-Laith, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and Ishaq.”

      When Jesus said His followers had to hate their families, even their own lives to follow Him, everyone knew He meant it as a comparison to their love for Jesus. In addition, Jesus commanded people to honor their fathers and mothers and to love their enemies. But Muhammad allowed his followers even to murder members of their own families!
      The fifth incident involves another Muslim man named Amr Umayya, who was sent out by Muhammad to murder Muhammad’s enemy Abu Sufyan, (Guillaume, op cit, page 673). However, his assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep, and thereafter:
      “as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck.” p. 674.

      Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates,
      “He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me”. p. 675.

      So, Muhammad blessed one of his men who murdered a one-eyed shepherd while he slept. Another person who didn’t want to follow Muhammad, another murder in Islam’s name. Muhammad’s trail of blood continued to grow.

      The sixth incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Fazara initially defeated the Muslims. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, page 665:

      “….and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old women, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.)

      Here, Muhammad’s companions went out and attacked people, took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! When one reads of the horrible things the Serbs have done, one is offended. But I wonder how many Muslims know that Muhammad’s companions did such things. Muhammad was every bit as brutal as the Nazis.

      The 7th incident involves another slave woman who was murdered, upon Muhammad’s command because she had mocked Muhammad some time earlier. From Guillaume, op cit, page 550, 551:

      “Another [to be killed] was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him.”

      Let’s stop here and examine this paragraph. Muhammad ordered that a man who apostatized, and his two slave girls, be killed. Khatal was ordered to be killed not because he killed his male slave, a Muslim, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death for killing a slave. Muhammad also ordered two slave girls to be killed for singing satirical songs about him. They sung satirical songs about Muhammad probably at least a year or more earlier. Now, after Muhammad conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay those slave girls back. These slave girls were not threats to Islam, or to the new Islamic state. They were only slave girls. They were ordered to be executed only because they sang a silly song about Muhammad. Page 551 finishes the story of the slave girls:

      “As for Ibn Khatal’s two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her.”
      Needless to say, if the second slave girl didn’t ask for “immunity”, Muhammad would have had her murdered also. How do you feel when you hear of Serbs murdering Bosnian and Kosovo women? Yet Muhammad did exactly that – he had women murdered just for making fun of him. If a Muslim justified Muhammad’s murder of slave girls, then by their standards, they have to justify what the Serbs did in Kosovo.

      SUMMARY

      We see that Muhammad had many people murdered. By request, by command, by implication, Muhammad had many people murdered, many killed while they slept. There were no trials, no judgments, no dialog, if you insulted Muhammad, if you doubted his credibility and if you spoke out, you were murdered. Men and women, young and old, all were killed because of Muhammad’s hatred. Here is a summary of the seven terroristic murders committed at Muhammad’s requests or efforts:

      (1) Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish man who was murdered because he was simply a Jew

      (2) Abu Afak, a 120 year old man, murdered while he slept

      (3) Asma Marwan, mother of 5 children, murdered while she slept

      (4) A slave women, mother of two children, murdered while she slept

      (5) A one-eyed shepherd, murdered while he slept

      (6) A very old women, literally ripped in half by Muslims who captured her on a raid.

      (7) A slave girl, who was murdered because she poked fun at Muhammad.
      I will add that there were many more people who suffered a similar fate. I choose not to list them here because of space limitations. Make no mistake about it: Muhammad was a terrorist. Today’s Muslim terrorists follow his actions. Like prophet, like followers; today’s Mohammadan terrorists commit their acts based upon what Muhammad did.

      QUESTIONS

      (1) What kind of man was Muhammad who would have peaceful Jews, a 120 year old man, a mother of 5 children, slave girls, etc. murdered because they disagreed or criticized him?

      (2) Is it right to murder others simply because they disagree with you, or even mock you? Why couldn’t Muhammad handle some criticism? Do people who disagree with others deserve to be murdered, in cold blood, in the night, secretly, while they sleep? Don’t corrupt politicians or organized criminals do that?

      (3) Isn’t this type of action similar to the actions of Muslim terrorists today? They operate secretly, they kill unsuspecting people, they murder without law or justice. They kill those who merely disagree or even verbally oppose them.

      (4) Are these “Islamic” values compatible with our values in America? Should Americans who criticize Muhammad expect to have their freedom of speech threatened, or should they live in fear of being killed for speaking their mind? Remember, Muslims in America have already begun to murder Americans for the sake of Islam.

      (5) If Muhammad put this system in place, i.e., the murdering of people who disagree and criticize him, how does it affect Islamic society? How does it relate to what we have seen done in Islamic societies such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Sudan? The end result has been brutal massacres, murders, tortures, etc. This is all traceable to Muhammad’s actions.

      (6) If Muhammad were alive today, and you knew about the people he murdered, what would you say? Shouldn’t we want this type of criminal to pay for his crimes, put in jail for life, or possibly even forfeiting his life for his capital crimes? Who feels sympathy for a white racist who is sentenced to death for dragging a black man behind an automobile and killing him? Yet Muhammad tortured a man then murdered him, just to get money. Muslims are called to follow Muhammad’s “lifestyle” and Islamic law. Murdering others, in Allah’s name, is part of that style and system.

      (7) Don’t we have the right to evaluate Muhammad’s actions according to decent standards of morality? He claimed to be the last prophet of God. He claimed his system was God’s final revelation for all humankind. So by any common moral standards, wasn’t what Muhammad did was terribly evil? If normal human standards of morality are far better than his behavioral standard, then how does the morality of this self-asserted “prophethood” rate? Why do our moral standards eclipse those of God’s alleged final prophet?

      (8) Doesn’t this sound exactly like what the Serbs are doing? We see the Serbs committing some of the most brutal atrocities in history. Yet Muhammad did the same things. The Serbs have murdered the Kosovars simply because they were not Serbs. This is exactly what Muhammad ordered when he urged his follower to murder the Jews. We see the Serbs taking the possessions of the Kosovars. This is exactly what Muhammad did to the tribes of people he attacked. We see the Serbs raping Kosovan women. Muhammad allowed his soldiers to rape female slaves. If Muhammad were alive today, we’d call him a Serb or a Nazi!

      (9) Why wouldn’t Muhammad murder her himself? Why is it that every time Muhammad wanted someone killed, he always got someone else to do his killing?
      (10) Look at this dark side of Islam. This is the Islam Muhammad practiced. When the founder of a religion has to have powerless women murdered in the night for opposing him, how can that religion be described?

      (11) Where are “human rights” now in Islam? If Muhammad denied freedom of speech to others, how does that reflect upon Islam and what we see occurring in the Islamic world today?

      (12) Why is it that the more fundamental a Muslim nation becomes, the more oppressive it becomes toward all basic human rights? Take the Taliban for instance. They have been great fighters. But once in power, they began to oppress the populace, and especially Afghan women. Initially, they said it was only temporary, but it has continued to get worse, not better for Afghani women. The RAWA organization has a website that exposes their oppression.

      TERRORISM IN THE QUR’AN

      Muhammad taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Generally, Jews and Christians were allowed to live as such, provided they paid a special tax. This tax is Jizya, a tax revenue given to the Muslims to make up for revenues they lost from no longer dealing in pagan activities. If the Jews and Christians refused to pay this extortion tax they would have to convert to Islam or be killed. Non-Jews and non-Christians, such as idolaters or pagans, had to convert to Islam or be killed. Generally they didn’t have the option of paying the tax. Here is the verse that teaches Muslims to oppress Jews and Christians:

      “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, (which is Islam that abolishes all other religions ) of the people of the Book, (meaning the Jews and the Christians ) until they pay the Jizya (the tax imposed upon them) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued . (with humiliation and submission to the government of Islam.) 9:29.”

      (Commentary in parenthesis is from the Tafsir Al-Jalalein. i.e., Al-Jalalein’s Interpretation of the Koran.)

      The order to subjugate or kill Christians and Jews is in that verse. It is clear that Muhammad ordered his followers to fight those Christians and Jews to convert them or pay the Jizya, and if they didn’t convert or pay, do you think that he told the followers to let them go in peace? It is very clear: convert, pay with submission, or die. The background for this is found in “The Life of Muhammad”, op cit, page 620,
      “until they [the Jews and Christians] pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled”, i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in their former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of scripture.”
      Muhammad told his followers to attack the Jews and Christians. If they humble themselves and submit to the Muslims, but choose to remain Christian or Jewish, then they had to pay the Muslims. Again, as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, Allah changed. Now Muhammad was an extortionist. Also note that the tax levied upon the Christians and Jews was not to support the state in general affairs, it was to compensate the Muslims. Muhammad was exactly like Mafia crime boss, making others pay for “protection,” except it was Christians and Jews who really needed protection from the Muslims! Here is the verse in the Qur’an that teaches Muslims to attack and kill pagans:
      “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Sura 9:5

      The background for this verse is found in “The Life of Muhammad”, op cit, page 617-619. Please note that my comments are in [ ] type brackets, and that it is a very long passage, so I have only quoted a portion of it:

      A discharge came down, [Muhammad received a supposed revelation from God], permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists that none should be kept back from the temple when he came to it, and that none need fear during the sacred months. That there was a general agreement between him and the polytheists; meanwhile there were particular agreements between the apostle and the Arab tribes for specified terms. And there came down about it and about the disaffected who held back from him in the raid on Tabuk, [a Christian town Muhammad attacked, and forced them to pay him], …..So travel through the land for four months and know that you cannot escape God and that God will put the unbelievers to shame. And a proclamation from God and His apostle to men on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His apostle are free from obligation to the polytheists, i.e., after this pilgrimage. So if you repent it will be better for you; and if you turn back know that you cannot escape God. Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty. …..If one of the polytheists, i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill, asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety.

      Basically, Muhammad had an agreement with a number of Arab tribes. Some were peaceful with him, others disliked him. “Allah” gave Muhammad a “revelation” allowing him to break his word, the “agreement” with the pagan Arabs and attack them after the four sacred months were over. Once again, Muhammad had gained power, and things changed. Now Muhammad was permitted to lie, i.e., break his agreement, and make war upon the pagans. Muhammad’s circumstances changed, and Allah changed again.
      Note that in the last quoted paragraph, it is supposed to be God telling the Muslims to go out and kill people. Some of these people had gotten along peacefully with the Muslims. But because they didn’t follow Muhammad, they were going to be attacked.

      ISLAMIC TERRORISM UPON MUSLIMS WHO LEAVE ISLAM
      Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those who merely opposed him verbally. Muhammad also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are to be murdered as well. Here are some quotes from Bukhari’s collection of Hadith. Remember, Bukhari’s Hadith is the second, following the Qur’an, most important writing in Islam,.

      Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17
      “Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

      Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57,
      Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

      Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64
      Narrated Ali, “Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s messenger saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”
      Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder those that have left Islam, “wherever you find them”, he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type of murder will be doing God’s service and be rewarded!

      RECENT MUSLIM WRITINGS ON ISLAM AND TERRORISM

      Several Muslims have written about the reasons they are allowed to wage war. From “The Qur’anic Concept of War”, by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, it says, [in the preface]

      “But in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the every purpose of the creation of mankind.” “Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the above verses in the Qur’an to be able to contend that world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is a sufficient answer to make… that the defiance of God’s authority by one who is His slaves exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and as such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of that cancerous growth on that organism of humanity…. It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity.”
      The Muslim writer states that those who reject Islam are viewed as a cancerous growth to be violently removed, i.e., murdered. And, note that the Muslim writer basically agrees with the “Western Scholars” who say that Islam is indeed “in a state of perpetual war”, with non-Muslims. In viewing what has happened in Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. it appears the reverse is true, viz., Islam is actually the cancerous growth that has caused so much death and terror in the world.

      ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN THE WORLD TODAY
      Most Muslims are not terrorists. Many of them reject the actions of their Muslim brethren around the world. Unfortunately, since Islam teaches world domination, these moderate Muslims rarely raise their voices in protest. If Israelis bomb a Hezbollah camp in Lebanon, Muslims in Western countries will organize vocal demonstrations. Israel has never killed as many Muslims as Saddam Hussein did, but Muslims generally turn a blind eye to violent acts when it is Muslim on Muslim violence. But getting Muslims to condemn the terrorist actions of their brethren, say of those in Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, or Iraq is like pulling teeth. While the Muslims world wide continually condemns Israel, few Muslims ever raised their voices in protest over Saddam Hussein’s genocidal war upon the Kurds. Why did Bin Laden fail to help the Kurds? Instead, reports on Bin Laden have shown that he worked together with Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, why did the Muslim nations of Iran and Iraq oppose Western military action to stop the genocide of Muslim Kosovars?
      Muslims condemn Western sanctions of Iraq. But, they forget that Western nations were their saviors when Iraq conquered Kuwait and made threats toward Saudi Arabia. These Muslim countries appealed to non-Muslim nations to free Muslim Kuwait from Muslim conquest and to halt Iraq’s military advance upon the land of Mecca and Medina. If Western countries were so evil, why did Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the land of Muhammad, have to appeal to the West to protect them from their own Muslim brethren? Why did non-Muslims have to stop the fighting between Muslim brethren and to protect the land of Mecca from Saddam Hussein, a Muslim despot? Was not Allah able to protect them? Even though all these events are historical facts, Muslims freely criticize Western involvement in the Middle East.
      What does the future hold for Islam in Western countries? One thing I am certain of; it holds terrorism. I’ve studied Islamic viewpoints on the Western world, especially America. The majority of Muslims today view America as the last great wall that stops Islam. In their mind, America must be destroyed or brought down, by any means necessary. This is what motivated Sheik Rahman to blow up the New York towers. This is what motivates Muslims throughout America to speak of a day when America will fall to Islam’s power. Make no mistake about it, Muslims have murdered Americans in America, and will continue to do so. It is not a question of “if”, it is a question of “when.”
      Once again I say, most Muslims in America are not terrorists. Many of them are good people. But the seeds of terrorism are planted deep within the theology and psyche of Islam. This theology, when free to grow and blossom, will show itself in the actions of Muslims who are faithful to the example of Muhammad. And as was demonstrated in “Not Without My Daughter”, who knows when a peaceful, liberal or moderate Muslim will turn to fundamentalism and embrace the violence of Islam?
      Often there is a strange transformation in the viewpoint of some Muslims who seek to immigrate to a Western nation. At first, these Muslims complain to immigration officials about their native country and its lack of opportunities, human rights, religious liberties, and intellectual freedom. However, once they settle in a Western nation and enjoy its liberties, some turn against their host nation and begin to praise the virtue’s of an Islamic state. They seem to have forgotten their pleadings with immigration officials to accept their application. They would be upright, and certainly more honest, if they would strive for human and religious rights for the non-Muslim minorities who suffer under Islamic rule. And, if they truly believed that Islam is the answer, why didn’t they seek asylum in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan?

      CONCLUSION
      Muhammad intimidated and murdered people to propagate his ideology. His actions are the actions of ideological and religious terrorism. Since Muslim look to Muhammad as a source of inspiration and model behavior, Muslims find support for Islamic terroristic activity in the life and teachings of their prophet Muhammad. Today, Muslims use that justification to attack and murder those who differ from them. When Muslim terrorists do this, they follow in Muhammad’s footsteps. Jesus condemned those who murder, and Muhammad falls into this category.
      “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” Revelation 22:15.
      Jesus said in John’s gospel that Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and that those who sought to murder Him were Satan’s children.
      You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44
      As soon as he rose to power, Muhammad began to have people murdered. Today, Muhammad’s children do the same evil deeds. Jesus taught that one day people would murder Christians thinking they would be doing service to God.
      …a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. John 16:2 (NIV)
      Today, in Muslim countries, like Iran for instance, Muslims murder ex-Muslims who have become Christians. And in other countries, they attack and threaten others. Jesus taught to love your enemies, to pray for those that persecute you. Jesus didn’t send his disciples out to murder people in the night, Muhammad did. Take the example of Christ and the Samaritans opposition to Jesus.
      “As the time approached for Him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he set messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” And he said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went to another village.” Luke 10:51-56
      Muhammad would have ordered his men to attack the Samaritan village, then kill or enslave the people, and take all their possession as plunder. After Muhammad gained power, he sent his armies out to attack non-Muslims. Who then really brought God’s message of His love for mankind? Who really taught peace? Surely, this man Muhammad was not from God. Instead, Muhammad is one of the false prophets Jesus warned his disciples about in Matthew gospel,
      And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Matthew 24:11
      REFERENCES
      1 “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, pub. by Oxford Univ. Press.
      2 “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina”, by Weinsnick, page 113:
      3 Tabari’s History, page 97 of volume 7
      4 “Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir”, (Book of the Major Classes), by Ibn Sa’d, translated by S. Moinul Haq, published by the Pakistan Historical Society.
      5 “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, by Ali Dashti, pub. by Mazda. Translated by F.R.C. Bagley.
      6 “Sunan Abu Dawud”, translated by Ahmad Hasan, pub by Al-Medina Publications.

  3. YO BRO,

    YOU TUBE BANNED YOUR VIDEO!
    IT MUST BE GOOD!

    YOUR NEXT VIDEO SHOULD USE THIS SCRIPT:

    THE PERFECT EXAMPLE FOR MANKIND

    “PARAGON OF MORAL PERFECTION”

    THE PERFECT MUSLIM

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

    Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
    (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).
    “Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’ Say (O Muhammad): ‘Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad).’ But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers.”
    (Quran: 3:31)
    “And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, leave it. And fear Allah: truly Allah is severe in punishment.
    (Quran 59:7)

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

    MOHAMMED GAVE BLOWJOBS TO HIS GRANDSON:

    SURA 52:24
    “And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.”
    Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter
    Title: “Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan”: “I saw the prophet – pbuh –
    sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the
    prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet
    sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
    He (the Prophet) lift up his (al Hasan’s) shirt & kissed his (little) penis..”
    روى أنه صلى الله عليه و سلم قبل زبيبة الحسن أو الحسين
    He (the prophet) kissed the (little) penis of al Hasan or al Husein
    رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فرج ما بين فخذي الحسين و قبل زبيبته
    He (the prophet) put Husein’s legs apart & kissed his (little) penis
    Another Hadith. Majma al-Zawa’id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, 299/9 مجمع الزوائد لعلي بن أبى بكر الهيثمي
    رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فرج ما بين فخذي الحسين و قبل زبيبته
    رواه الطبراني و إسناده حسن
    translated in English: “I saw the Messenger of Allah pbuh putting Husein’s legs apart & kissing his (little) penis.”
    Related by Al-Tabarani & it’s authentication is good.
    Face it your prophet who you consider perfect had sex with young boys including his grandson & had a 6 year old wife; raped and murdered, among other things.

    ALLAH’S ARITHMETIC: 54 INTO 9 GOES NICELY

    THE WANKING PERVERT FROM MECCA

    A marriage is engaged in by 2 consenting adults.
    Do you really believe a 6 year old child would desire to marry a 51 year old man?
    Do you think that is what she would choose?
    Do you think a 9 year old girl would desire to have sex with a 54 year old?

    The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and WANKED BETWEEN HER THIGHS FOR 3 YEARS and consummated/RAPED her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.
    MUHAMMAD: HIS SEX LIFE, SEX ABUSE & CHILD MOLESTING

    Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly. Let us investigate how did the prophet live Islam; how did the prophet apply the eternal teachings of God in his daily life? In this search for the historical Muhammad, we will utilize the Islam’s holy books, its own writings.

    MUHAMMAD’S MOLESTATION OF BABY AISHA

    Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father.
    Sahih Bukhari 9.140
    Narrated ‘Aisha:
    Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.
    AISHA’S FATHER DID NOT APPROVE AT FIRST
    Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
    Sahih Bukhari 7.18
    Narrated ‘Ursa:
    The prophet asked abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

    MUHAMMAD WOULD THIGH WITH BABY AISHA

    HOW TO THIGH & GET HIGH

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

    Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.

    According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

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

    Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.
    Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.”Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

    The inquirer asked the following: ‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

    After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

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

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

    AISHA WASHING SEMEN FROM MUHAMMAD’S CLOTHES

    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

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

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

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

    MUHAMMAD WAS A CUCKSUCKING, WANKING CHILD MOLESTER!

    ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED THE RAPE OF FEMALE CAPTIVES:

    RAPE JIHAD:

    Sahih Muslim Book 08. N 3371Marriage

    Chapter: Al-Azl (incomplete sexual intercourse): Coitus Interruptus.

    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women;

    and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.
    So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?

    So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

    REMEMBER:

    ISLAM TEACHES THAT RAPE IS ORDAINED OF GOD

    ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED RAPE

    Al-‘AZL

    Al-‘Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-‘Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.
    Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime & ALL OVER EUROPE TODAY

    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135

    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136

    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus(RAPE WITHOUT PREGNANCY)?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to PULL OUT. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

    Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

    Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”
    Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718

    EDUCATING IGNORANT MOHAMMEDANS:
    CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AN INTACT HYMEN

    Most females are born with a hymen, a thin piece of skin that partially covers the vaginal opening (or introitus). The main purpose of the hymen is to protect the vaginal opening and the areas immediately surrounding the introitus during a female’s early developing years. Despite its biological function, many cultures place a significant amount of importance on the hymen and whether or not it is intact. This small and seemingly insignificant piece of tissue is of such great importance to many cultures because an intact hymen is believed to indicate the chastity of a female. The presence of the hymen implies that the female is a virgin (one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse). The importance of a female’s chastity is often emphasized in patriarchal societies and by traditional religions. Some arguments that are used to back this notion are the presumption that a chaste bride values fidelity and the that there is an increased guarantee that her offspring will be her husband’s children and not someone else’s. Men are also encouraged to seek virgins as wives because they are deemed “pure” and not sexually promiscuous.
    One problem with this theory, however, is that if a woman does not have an intact hymen, it is possible that she is still a virgin. A woman may not have a hymen for a variety of different reasons. Many women tear their hymen, thus enlarging the vaginal opening, through nonsexual activities that put tension on the hymeneal tissue. These activities include engaging in sports, horseback riding, or inserting tampons. Women may not even be aware that their hymen has torn, since there may be little or no blood and no pain. Sexual intercourse is only one of many reasons why a woman may not have a hymen. Likewise, a non-virginal female may still have an intact hymen. The hymen can stretch sufficiently to permit entry of tampons and sometimes even a penis.

    In societies that emphasize the importance of a hymen, a woman without a hymen may be at risk on her wedding night. In many cultures that put an emphasis on virginity, the husband expects to “pop” his wife’s “cherry.” Blood-stained sheets are often put on display to mark the loss of virginity and prove the bride’s purity. A female who does not bleed on her wedding night may be judged as to be a non-virgin. She risks being shunned by her family and new husband. She may even be returned to her family as “used goods,” stoned to death, or banished from her society. Again, virginal women may not have an intact hymen or experience bleeding upon intercourse.

    The hymen carries a great deal of importance and symbolism even in the United States. There have been instances in the United States, especially among college students, of people being eager to lose their virginity as soon as possible. In this case retaining one’s virginity is seen as a stigma of inexperience. However, in many places in the U.S., losing ones virginity still carries a stigma for young women. Perhaps because of the stigma associated with this act, men and boys alike are sometimes eager to be the ones who “take” a girls virginity. Men and boys alike may be eager to “pop a girl’s cherry.” However, other than tearing or stretching her hymen, there is no other biological change that a woman goes through after her first intercourse. The thought that a woman loses value by losing her virginity is an outdated and degrading concept. We can only hope that as more and more people begin to understand the basics of human sexuality, these false myths will be eradicated.

    Another problem with connecting the presence of an intact hymen and lack of penile-vaginal penetration to virginity, is that it often excludes the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community. Members of the LGBT community consider sex with the same partner as a relinquishing of virginity, and may feel discredited or discounted by the heteronormative view that pervades discussions of virginity. Similarly, there has been a rise in alternative sexual activity among teenagers who have taken chastity pledges. This alternative sexual activity includes practices like oral sex and anal sex, which they often do not think of as sexual intercourse. Because virginity is a complex and culturally constructed concept, we recommend that you take it with a grain of salt. Whether or not you tore or stretched your hymen, it is up to you and no one else to decide whether you are a virgin. Besides, your virginity is not an accurate measure of your worth or morality.

    Hymen Reconstructive Surgery

    In many religious communities, there has been an influx of hymen reparation surgery. In some Muslim communities, virginity is expected of a bride. For this reason, women who no longer have an intact hymen have their hymens surgically reconstructed in order to appear virginal on their wedding night. This is especially prominent among students who have gone to live in more sexually permissive cultures. The surgery creates a fake hymen at the vaginal opening. It generally costs from $400 to $1000, but varies from country to country. In addition to the surgery, some women have a gelatin capsule full of blood inserted within their vaginal canal to cause bleeding upon penetration. Beyond reasons of religious necessity, some women will get this surgery done as a gift to their husband along with a tightening of the vaginal canal.

    Sources:
    http://www.babapandey.com/hymen-repair-and-a-prettier-vagina-the-current

    SUNNA OF EVIL PERFECTION

    The following are a short-list of the evil Sunnah of Muhammad, recorded in the Hadiths of Bukhari:
    Child sexual molestation and Pedophilia is Sunna in Islam.
    Murder, even Mass Murder, is Sunna in Islam.
    Extermination and ethnic cleansing of communities is Sunna in Islam.
    Rape is Sunna in Islam.
    Sex Slavery is Sunna in Islam
    Beheading is Sunna in Islam.
    Stoning to death for sexual deviation is Sunna in Islam.
    Beating one’s wife is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering Kafir children is Sunna in Islam.
    Murdering Muslims’ own children is Sunna in Islam.
    Murdering Jews is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering Christians is Sunna in Islam
    Slavery is Sunna in Islam
    Booty is Sunna in Islam
    Whipping is Sunna in Islam
    Torture is Sunna in Islam
    Terror is Sunna in Islam
    Maiming is Sunna in Islam
    Jihad is Sunna in Islam
    Extortion is Sunna in Islam
    Inferiority, oppression, subjugation of Women Is Sunna in Islam
    Looting, pillaging is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering elderly is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering musicians is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering those who are being sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering those who deny any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering those who hold that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent is Sunna in Islam
    (Murdering those who revile the religion of Islam, being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering apostates is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering prisoners of war is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering gays is Sunna in Islam.
    Forcible conversion is Sunna in Islam.Murdering those who are critical of Islam is Sunna in Islam
    Murdering those who revile Allah or his Messenger is Sunna in Islam

    BUGGING YOUR WIFE?

    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:
    REVEALING THE TRUTH
    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
    SALAFI “ULAMA RULED THAT MASTURBATION (WANKING) IS HALAL
    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”.
    COMMENT:
    The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:
    (AN ARMY OF WANKERS)
    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:
    SUNNI ‘ULAMA LEGITIMISED THE USE OF DILDOS (FEMALE SEX TOYS)
    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”.
    COMMENT:
    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 –
    SUNNI ‘ULAMA HAVE RULED ON PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH WATERMELONS
    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”.
    COMMENT:
    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 –
    A SALAFI WOMAN CAN SUCKLE A SALAFI MAN WITH A BEARD
    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.
    COMMENT:
    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 –
    BESTIALITY CAN BE PERFORMED DURING HAJJ
    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 –
    PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING
    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
    COMMENT:
    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 –
    THE PERMISSIBILITY OF PRAYING BEHIND A DRUNKEN PERSON
    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.
    COMMENTARY:
    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 –
    THE PERMISSIBILITY TO PAY FOR SEX, WITHOUT FEAR OF ISLAMIC PUNISHMENT
    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 –
    THE PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH ONE’S MOTHER
    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
    COMMENTARY
    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 –
    THE “HONOURABLE” TACTIC OF AMR BIN AAS TO SURVIVE IMMINENT DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD
    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”
    COMMENT:
    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.

    ANIMAL LOVING MUSLIMS:

    ISLAM & ZOOPHILIA

    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 THE ISLAMIC WORLD

    AFGHANISTAN

    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?

    PALESTINE

    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

    PAKISTAN

    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

    DONKEY KILLED AFTER BEING RAPED

    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

    OTHER COUNTRIES & BESTIALITY — RELATED SEARCHES

    Pakistani Muslims are not alone in their search for porn.
    Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries – searching for sex-related sites – six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.

    PAKISTAN MOST SEX STARVED

    Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, May 17, 2006
    Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:[8]
    Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
    Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
    Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
    Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
    Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
    Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)

    MIDDLE EAST

    Bestiality is common among boys of tribal Arab cultures.
    Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, “Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys.” Havelock-Ellis [note 52] states “The Arabs, according to Kocher, chiefly practice bestiality with goats, sheep and mares. The Annamites, according to Mondiere, commonly employ sows and (more especially the young women) dogs.”
    Historical And Cultural Perspectives On Zoophilia
    Serving History
    There is also a certain saying which remains popular among the Arabs:
    The Arabs have never taken quite so condemnatory an attitude towards the practice, and indeed a popular Arab saying had it that

    “The pilgrimage to Mecca is not complete without copulating with the camel.”

    SUDAN

    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

    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.

    SLAMIC SCRIPTURE

    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?

    QURAN

    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.

    HADITH

    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.

  4. “CONGRATULATIONS”

    Congratulations
    And celebrations
    When I tell everyone that you’re NO 1
    With me
    Congratulations
    And jubilations
    I want the world to know I’m happy as can be.

    Who could believe that I could be happy and contented
    I used to think that happiness hadn’t been invented
    But that was in the bad old days before I met you
    When I let you walk into my computer

    Congratulations
    And celebrations
    When I tell everyone that you’re NO 1
    With me
    Congratulations
    And jubilations
    I want the world to know I’m happy as can be.

    WHY BLACK AFRICA SHOULD RESIST ARAB DOMINATION OF AU
    By Chinweizu
    Friday, September 01, 2006
    Part I:

    THE ARAB QUEST FOR LEBENSRAUM IN AFRICA

    The third of the Arab community living outside Africa should move in with the two-thirds on the continent and join the African Union “which is the only space we have’ — Col. Mouammar Gadhafi of Libya, at the Arab League, 2001

    Many AfriKans take great exception to the sentiments and views expressed by Col. Gadhafi at the March 2001, Amman, Jordan meeting of the Arab League. –Prof. Kwesi Kwa Prah, 2004, in a paper to the AU [both quotes in Bankie and Mchombu eds, 2006:217, 235]

    Besides joining Prof. Prah and the other Afrikans who take exception to Gadhafi’s statement, I should like to point out that Gadhafi’s invitation to his fellow Arabs is nothing but a declaration of race war on Africa. It is an invitation to more Arabs to invade and colonize Africa. Indeed, it is a call for the final phase of the 15 centuries old Arab lebensraum war on Afrikans – a war to Islamise and conquer all of Africa, from Cairo to the Cape and from Senegal to Somalia, and to then enslave or Arabise all the conquered Afrikans. In order to make that clear, it is necessary to first put his invitation in the context of the traditions of Arab melanophobia and negrophobia, and of Arab expansionist ambitions and conquests that go back to the time of their Arab prophet, Mohammed.

    MELANOPHOBIA & NEGROPHOBIA IN ARAB CULTURE

    The following excerpt from The Crisis of Identity in Northern Sudan: A Dilemma
    of a Black people with a White Culture, by Al-Baqir al-Afif Mukhtar, gives an insight into the melanophobia and negrophobia that Arab culture has reeked of since before the time of Mohammed: “The contempt towards . . . the dark skinned is expressed in a thousand ways in the documents, literature and art that have come down to us from the Islamic Middle Ages.

    . . . This literature, and especially popular literature, depicts (the black man) in the form of hostile stereotypes – as a demon in fairy tales, as a savage in the stories of travel and adventure, or commonly as a lazy, stupid, evil-smelling and lecherous slave. . . . Ibn Khaldun sees the blacks as “characterized by levity and excitability and great emotionalism” and [says] that “they are everywhere described as stupid” . . . al-Dimashqi had the following to say: “The Equator is inhabited by communities of blacks who may be numbered among the savage beasts. Their complexion and hair are burnt and they are physically and morally abnormal. Their brains almost boil from the sun’s heat.”

    Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani follows the same line of reasoning. To him . . . the zanj . . .are “overdone until they are burned so that the child comes out between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly- haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions. . .”

    ARAB-MUSLIM DOCTRINES ON BLACK ENSLAVEMENT:

    The following excerpt [from Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture by Adam Misbah aI-Haqq, shows how and why Arabs incurably believe in enslaving blacks: “Classic Muslim thought maintained that blacks became legitimate slaves by virtue of the colour of their skin.
    The justification of the early Muslim equation of blackness with servitude was found in the Genesis story so popularly called “the curse of Ham,” in reference to one of Noah’s sons . . . .In the Arab- Muslim version, blacks are cursed to be slaves and menials, Arabs are blessed to be prophets and nobles, while Turks and Slavs are destined to be kings and tyrants. . . . The famous Al-Tabari, for example, cites no less than six Prophetic traditions which seek to support this story. One tradition reads: Ham begat all those who are black and curly- haired, while Japheth begat those who are full faced with small eyes, and Shem begat everyone who is handsome of face (Arabs of course) with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow past their ears, and wherever his descendants met the children of Shem, the latter would enslave them.

    Ahmad Ibn Hanbal reported a saying attributed to the Prophet which in effect states that God created the white race (dhurriyyah bayd) from the right shoulder of Adam and created the black race (dhurriyyah sawd) from Adam’s left shoulder. Those of Adam’s right shoulder would enter Paradise and those of the left, Perdition. Other equally racist sayings have been attributed to the Prophet in the traditions.
    Contradicting this spirit, there are the sayings of the Prophet which equate the value of a person to his God-consciousness (taqwa), and to their piety without any regard to the tribal or ethnocentric concerns of a racist purport. Such [egalitarian] reports [were overshadowed by] the more deeply rooted tradition of racial bigotry . . . [emphasized by] Muslim geographers and travellers who ventured into Africa. . . . Al-Maqdisi wrote, “ . . . As for the Zanji, they are people of black colour, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.” . . . Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406CE) added that blacks are “only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings.” . . . Even such luminaries as Ibn Sina considered blacks to be “people who are by their very nature slaves.” .

    . . The creation or resurgence of the mythology of Ham also made dark-skinned people synonymous with servitude in light-skinned Muslim thinking.

    This went so far that eventually, the term abd (slave), went through a semantic development and came to specifically refer to “black slave” while lightskinned slaves were referred to as mamluks. And further on in later usage, the Arabic word came to mean “black man” of whatever status. . . .”

    We can now see why, when an Arab sees anyone with black skin, all he notices is a dumb animal that he is licensed and even obliged by his religion to capture and enslave. With that background on the Arab tradition of enslaving and holding blacks in profound contempt, let us now examine the meaning of Gadhafi’s call for lebensraum.

    In 2001, the Libyan leader, Gadhafi, under the cover of advancing the Nkrumahist Pan- African project of African Unity, was concluding his sub-imperial assignment to round up the African states into his Arab-dominated AU for easier muzzling and control by global imperialism. At an Arab League meeting in Amman, Jordan, Gadhafi exposed another hidden agenda of his AU project when he observed that 2/3 of the world’s [approximately 250million] Arabs now live in Africa, and he invited the rest to move into Africa and join them.

    Though the Pan-African News Agency (PANA) reported it and posted it on its website, I wonder how many African leaders took note of Gadhafi’s invitation and saw the danger it poses for Africa. What Afrikans (i.e. the indigenous peoples of Africa) should particularly note is his reason for the invitation, namely, that Africa is the only space Arabs have. This is so reminiscent of the Nazi project of seizing living space, lebensraum, for the Germans from their neighbours in Eastern Europe that any sensible Afrikan must understand it as a threat to all Afrikans.

    More importantly, it spells out, for all but the willfully and suicidally deaf to hear, the grand geopolitical purpose behind Arab policy and action in Africa in the last 50 years. But first, we need to put Gadhafi’s invitation in the context that allows us to appreciate the full danger to Afrikans from this enduring Arab ambition for lebensraum. Since the death of their prophet, Mohammed, Arabs have been relentlessly seizing lebensraum – living space—in Africa. Since their conquest of Egypt in 642, they have taken over all of North Africa, and most of the Nile valley and some of their tribes have even infiltrated as far west from the Nile as Lake Chad. Arabs have, by now, occupied supra-Sahara Africa and the Nile Valley, i.e. more than one-third of the African landmass, and they are still grabbing more and moving tenaciously to conquer the rest.

    ARAB EXPANSIONISM IN AFRICA, 640-1900

    I wonder how many Afrikans today wonder how it came about that Arabs, whose homeland is the Arabian Peninsula, came to occupy all of supra-Sahara Africa, from the Sinai peninsula across to Morocco’s Atlantic coast. And what they did to the Black Egyptians, Black Berbers and other blacks who were the aborigines of all that expanse of land? Similarly, Afrikans need to inquire into why and how an Arab minority has ruled Sudan since 1956? And how did it come about that we hear of Arab tribes in Darfur, Chad and even in Nigeria’s Bornu State? Until 640 AD, there were no Arab settlers of any kind in all those places. But in that year, hungry Arab hordes desperate for plunder and greener pastures charged out of Arabia, flying the flag of their new religion, Islam, and conquered Egypt by 642. Egypt thereafter became their base for invading and seizing lebensraum all the way west to Morocco and Mauritania, and southward up the Nile.
    In the first phase of conquest, an Arab raiding army reached Tangier on the Atlantic in 682. Then in the 11th Century, the Fatimids who were then ruling in Egypt, unleashed Bedouin Arab tribes, such as the Beni Hilal and Beni Sulaim, into the Maghreb. These Bedouin tribes overran as far west as Morocco in the 12th and 13th centuries, and brought about the Arabisation of the indigenous Berber population of the Maghreb whom they swamped.

    They reached northern Mauritania by the 14th Century. Also in the 14th Century, Guhayna Arab tribes, edged out of Egypt, infiltrated up the Nile into Sudan. In 1820, Mohammed Ali Pasha sent an expedition from Egypt that conquered Northern Sudan by 1841. In 1869, Ismail Pasha attempted to annex the region from Juba/Gondokoro to Lake Victoria, a region that would become Uganda and Sudan’s Equatoria Province. He failed, but the British who ruled from 1899 to 1956 later incorporated Equatoria into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In 1874, the Jellaba-Arab slave raider, Zubair Pasha conquered Dar Fur for the Egyptians. Also in the 19th Century, Awlad Sulaiman Arabs migrated, in the 1840s, from the Fezzan in Libya into the Lake Chad area, and Shuwa Arabs in search of pasturelands moved, in the 1810s, from Chad into the Bornu area of what became Nigeria.

    From the late 19th Century until the 1950s, Arab expansionism in Africa was stopped in its tracks by the European powers who conquered and partitioned Africa among themselves. Only with the retreat of European political rule did opportunity arise for Arab expansionism to resume its march. And it promptly did.
    Arab expansionism in Africa since 1956, i.e. in the era of continentalist Pan-Africanism.

    Continentalist Pan-Africanism was launched in 1958 at the Accra Conference of Independent African States (CIAS). It has been the dominant tendency within Pan-Africanism ever since, and it has given birth to the Arab-dominated OAU/AU. As some observers have pointed out, the Arab League, established in 1945, is the institutional organ for realizing the Arab aspirations for unity and imperial resurgence through “an Arab-Islamic empire across Africa into the Middle East.” Under its aegis, Arab nationalism resumed its expansion in Africa when, on attaining independence in 1956, the Jellaba-Arab minority government of Sudan defined Sudan as an Arab country and set out to enforce that definition on Sudan’s African majority.
    Islamisation and Arabisation of Black Africa: the pilot project in Sudan:

    It has been noted by Opoku Agyeman that Pan-Arabism, in its so-called ‘civilizing mission’ perceives Africa as a ‘cultural vacuum’ waiting to be filled by Arab culture “by all conceivable means” [Agyeman, 1994:30] including Islamisation, and the settlement of Arab populations on lands forcibly seized from Africans. The assumptions, objectives and methods of this project may be illustrated from the statements of its principal implementers in Sudan:

    “You are aware that the end of all our efforts and this expense is to procure Negroes. Please show zeal in carrying out our wishes in this capital matter.”
    –Muhammad Ali Pasha, Ruler of Egypt, 1825, in a letter to one of his generals in Sudan, quoted in [Nyaba, 2002:36]

    In his 1955 book on the orbital scheme [the three circles at whose center he envisioned Egypt to be], President Nasser characterized Africa as “the remotest depths of the jungle,” and as merely a candidate for Egypt’s “spread of enlightenment and civilization” via Islamisation-Arabisation.
    -Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt, 1955, quoted in [Agyeman,1994:34].
    “Sudan is geographically in Africa but is Arab in its aspirations and destiny. We consider ourselves the Arab spearhead in Africa, linking the Arab world to the African continent.” -Sudanese Prime Minister, Mahgoub, 1968, quoted in [Agyeman, 1994:38]. Sudan “is the basis of the Arab thrust into the heart of Black Africa, the Arab civilizing mission.”

    – President Nimeiry of Sudan, 1969, quoted in [Agyeman, 1994:39] “We want to Islamise America and Arabise Africa” – Dr. Hassan El-Turabi, chief ideologue of Jellaba-Arab minority rule in Sudan, 1999, quoted in [Nyaba, 2002:27]. “The south [Sudan] will remain an inseparable part of the land of Islam, God willing, even if the war continued for decades.”

    -Osama bin Laden, April 2006, [from an edited translation of an audiotape attributed to al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, parts of which were aired by Aljazeera on April 23, 2006]

    This thrusting of Arab spears into the body and soul of Black Africa through deAfrikanisation campaigns of Islamisation-Arabisation was, of course, not confined to Sudan, but has been done wherever Arabs spotted an opportunity to exploit Afrikan weakness, such as Mauritania, Chad, Somalia, Eritrea, Uganda. In the past 40 years, Libya’s Gadhafi has been particularly active in sponsoring chaos, anarchy and civil wars in Chad, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire etc., and in trying to Islamise Uganda, Rwanda, the CAR etc. For example, in a live broadcast on Rwanda Radio on 17 May, 1985, Gadhafi said: “First, you must stick to your Islamic religion and insist that your children are taught the Islamic religion and you teach the Arabic language because without the Arabic language, we could not understand Islam. . . You must teach that Islam is the religion of Africa. . . You must raise your voice high and declare that Allah is great because Africa must be the refugee camps in neighbouring Chad. . . .
    Muslim. . . We must wage a holy war so that Islam may spread in Africa. –quoted in [Bankie and Mchombu, 2006:239-240].

    Why do Gadhafi and other Arabisers sponsor Islamisation? Steve Biko pointed out the fundamental reason why imperialists make a point of converting their victims to their Christian religion when he said: It has always been the pattern throughout history that whosoever brings the new order knows it best and is therefore the perpetual teacher of those to whom the new order is being brought. If the white missionaries were “right” about their God in the eyes of the people, then the African people could only accept whatever these new know-all tutors had to say about life.

    The acceptance of the colonialist-tainted version of Christianity marked the turning point in the resistance of African people. [Biko, 1987:56]. Steve Biko’s observation helps explain why Arab hegemonists like Gadhafi insist on Islamising their intended victims. Since the death of their prophet, Mohammed, Islam has been the religious cloak and entry-dagger of Arab imperialism. Islamisation is used as a prelude to the project of Arabisation.

    Among the targeted victims, Islam privileges the Arabic language and culture. Arab names and customs are made obligatory, and the anathema on Jahiliya discourages remembrance of the pre-Islamic, non-Arab culture of an Islamised people. It should be noted that the core Islamic countries that stretch contiguously from the Maghreb to Pakistan are fragments of the empire that Arabs conquered and ruled from 632-1517 when the Turks, under Selim the Grim, conquered Egypt and Syria and extinguished the Arab Abbasid Caliphate. Thus, the core lands of Dar-al-Islam today are a continuation of the Arab Empire. Just as the Commonwealth is the euphemistic PR name for the enduring British Empire, so too Dar-al-Islam is the euphemistic PR name for the enduring Arab Empire. In fact, Dar-al-Islam is simply the Arab empire in religious camouflage, and the Umma are the Arab citizens/masters and the non-Arab subjects of the enduring Arab Empire.

    Gadhafi and the Arab lebensraum project in the 21st Century in furtherance of his lebensraum project, in May 2003, proposed a tripartite union of Libya, Sudan and Egypt, a move reminiscent of Hitler’s Anschluss project that annexed, in 1938, Austria as well as Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. To appreciate the menace in Gadhafi’s invitation, Afrikans would do well to consider Hitler’s drive for lebensraum and how it was stopped.

    Just as Gadhafi wants to enlarge Arabia inside Africa, Hitler wanted to enlarge Germany within Europe by the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude. [Hitler, 1971: 653] Hitler looked east for Germany’s expansion in Europe. In Nazi ideology, Lebensraum meant the expansion of Germany eastward to conquer lands for Germans to settle and peoples for Germans to enslave. According to Hitler, the ideal war was one of conquest, extermination, and subjugation; the ideal area in which to conduct such a war was in the east, where the German people would win for itself the lebensraum.

    The Nazi theory of Lebensraum became Germany’s foreign policy during the Third Reich. A key element in Hitler’s plan for lebensraum was the idea of military expansion and the forced expulsion of the nations of Poland, Ukraine, Russia etc. and their replacement with German settlers. The Lebensraum ideology was a major factor in Hitler’s launching of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. As the German armies moved eastward, the Nazis began to turn large areas of Soviet territory into German settlement areas. The biggest obstacle to implementing the Lebensraum further was the fact that by the end of 1942, the Sixth Army was defeated in Stalingrad. After the second big defeat in the tank battle at Kursk during July 1943 and the Allied landings in Sicily, all further Lebensraum plans came to a halt.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s