Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Female Genital Mutilation: 'Required by Islam'...

Sheelan Anwar Omer, a shy 7-year-old Kurdish girl, bounded into her neighbor's house with an ear-to-ear smile, looking for the party her mother had promised.

There was no celebration. Instead, a local woman quickly locked a rusty red door behind Sheelan, who looked bewildered when her mother ordered the girl to remove her underpants. Sheelan began to whimper, then tremble, while the women pushed apart her legs and a midwife raised a stainless-steel razor blade in the air. "I do this in the name of Allah!" she intoned.

As the midwife sliced off part of Sheelan's genitals, the girl let out a high-pitched wail heard throughout the neighborhood. As she carried the sobbing child back home, Sheelan's mother smiled with pride.

"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember," said the mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town about 100 miles north of Baghdad. "We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."

From: Washington Post

Monday, December 29, 2008

More Offerings from the Holy Warriors of Allah...

"When Christians kill Muslims, it's the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it's murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it's like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it."- Dan Gillerman.

Free-Thinkers' Fate Under Islamism

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause" - Muhammad, Prophet of Islam

12/28/2008 (Khost, Afghanistan) - Fourteen children on their way to school are deliberately murdered with two adults by a suicidal Sunni bomber.
12/28/2008 (Buner, Pakistan) - Religious extremists take out over three dozen people at a polling station with car bombs.
12/28/2008 (Yala, Thailand) - Islamic gunmen murder a man in a tea shop.
12/27/2008 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - Five Afghans are blown up by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
12/27/2008 (Kabul, Afghanistan) - Three teenage sisters are crushed to death by a Taliban rocket barrage.
12/27/2008 (Baghdad, Iraq) -
Women and children are among two dozen people blasted to death by Jihadi car bombers.
Monthly Jihad Report November 2008
Jihad Attacks: 191
Countries: 16
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 857
Critically Injured: 1568

Sunday, December 28, 2008

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTO: Holy Warriors in Mumbai Sexually Mutilated their Non-Muslim Victims

"Even the Rabbi and his wife at Nariman House were sexually assaulted and their genitalia mutilated" Remember, the Rabbi's wife was pregnant.

Terrorists sexually Humiliated guests before killing them
Foreign nationals at the Taj were particular targets of barbaric terrorists who first forced some of the guests to strip, then killed them
By Santosh Mishra
Posted On Thursday, December 25, 2008 at 02:25:08 AM

Disturbing photographs made available to this newspapers by police sources indicate that several of the guests at the Taj Mahal Hotel during the siege November 26 were sexually humiliated by the terrorists and then shot dead.
Police sources confirm that even as the terrorists were engaged in a fierce combat with NSG commandos, they were humiliating their hostages before ending their terrifying ordeal.
Foreign guests were their particular target. Eight of the 31 killed at the Taj were foreign nationals.
Photographs taken by a police forensic team after the hotel was sanitised yield a gruesome picture of some of the guests in the nude.
These bodies were found away from the hotel's swimming pool which makes it clear that they were not those guests who were taken hostage from the poolside.
"Even the Rabbi and his wife at Nariman House were sexually assaulted and their genitalia mutilated," said a senior officer of the investigating team, not wishing to be quoted.
“We have CCTV footage which reveals how these terrorists forced some of the guests who were holed up in restuarants to strip, but there is not evidence of rape,” he added.
These pictures, most of which we have refrained from printing, are in the records of the police and are now part of the investigation.

From the Mumbai Mirror with hat tip to Atlas Shrugs

Pak textbooks build hate culture against India...what do Maldivan mullahs teach?

The empowerment of terror in Pakistan has not happened overnight. This is the logical culmination of the politics and policies pursued by Pakistan for years now. Terrorism in Pakistan has its roots in the culture of hate and the ethos of inequality on the ground of religious faith, leading to their being deeply ingrained in the Pakistani psyche and mindset.
One factor that has played a crucial role in creating this culture of hate is the educational policy of the government of Pakistan pursued since 1977. The officially prescribed textbooks, especially for school students, are full of references that promote hate against India in general, and Hindus in particular.

A cursory glance at Pakistani school textbooks - especially the compulsory subjects like Pakistan studies and social studies - gives an idea of how history has been distorted and a garbled version prescribed to build this mindset and attitude.
The objective of Pakistan's education policy has been defined thus in the preface to a Class 6 book: "Social studies have been given special importance in educational policy so that Pakistan's basic ideology assumes the shape of a way of life, its practical enforcement is assured, the concept of social uniformity adopts a practical form and the whole personality of the individual is developed." This statement leaves no doubt that "social uniformity", not national unity, is a part of Pakistan's basic ideology.
The Class 5 book has this original discovery about Hindu help to bring British rule to India: "The British had the objective to take over India and to achieve this, they made Hindus join them and Hindus were very glad to side with the British. After capturing the subcontinent, the British began on the one hand the loot of all things produced in this area, and on the other, in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress the Muslims."
The Std VIII book says, "Their (Muslim saints) teachings dispelled many superstitions of the Hindus and reformed their bad practices. Thereby Hindu religion of the olden times came to an end."
On Indo-Pak wars, the books give detailed descriptions and openly eulogize ‘jihad' and ‘shahadat' and urge students to become ‘mujahids' and martyrs and leave no room for future friendship and cordial relations with India.
According to a Class 5 book, "In 1965, the Pakistani army conquered several areas of India, and when India was on the point of being defeated, she requested the United Nations to arrange a ceasefire. After 1965, India, with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated the people living there against the people of West Pakistan, and finally invaded East Pakistan in December 1971. The conspiracy resulted in the separation of East Pakistan from us. All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy."
The book prescribed for higher secondary students makes no mention of the uprising in East Pakistan in 1971 or the surrender by more than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers. Instead, it claims, "In the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the Pakistan armed forces created new records of bravery and the Indian forces were defeated everywhere.
" The students of Class 3 are taught that "Muhammad Ali (Jinnah) felt that Hindus wanted to make Muslims their slaves and since he hated slavery, he left the Congress". At another place it says, "The Congress was actually a party of Hindus. Muslims felt that after getting freedom, Hindus would make them their slaves."
And this great historic discovery is taught to Std V students, "Previously, India was part of Pakistan."
Commenting on this literature that spreads hate, leading Pakistani educationist Tariq Rahman wrote, "It is a fact that the textbooks cannot mention Hindus without calling them cunning, scheming, deceptive or something equally insulting. Students are taught and made to believe that Pakistan needs strong and aggressive policies against India or else Pakistan will be annihilated by it."
(The author is a former Union minister of India)

Saturday, December 27, 2008

The First Hundred Years

In just over one hundred years following the death of Mohammed in 632, the Arab followers of the Prophet had subjugated a territory with an east-west expanse greater than the Roman Empire, and they accomplished it in about half the time. By the mid-eighth century, Arab armies had conquered the thousand-year-old Persian Empire, reduced the Byzantine Empire to little more than a city-state based around Constantinople, and destroyed the Visigoth kingdom of Spain. The cultural and linguistic effects of this early Islamic expansion still reverberate today.

- from the inside flap of the book,
The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy
Many conquerors have come and gone, but the Islamic conquest had a devastating impact on the world — arguably a more devastating impact than any conquest before or since, including Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Ghengis Khan — because it wasn't merely a matter of the new conquerer gaining tribute. The Islamic conquerors took everything from the newly conquered: money, language, culture, traditions, wives, children, values. Everything. The nature of Islam is that it replaces cultures wherever it gets a foothold.

Mohammed, Prophet of Islam waging war.11th-century Persian miniature.

Cross posted from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance

A few warm thoughts for the holidays from Islam Q&A.

It is not permissible to congratulate the kuffaar on their festivals in any way whatsoever
What is the ruling on eating the food (rice, meat, chicken or cake) that is given to us by a Christian friend that he made for his birthday or for Christmas or the Christian New Year? What is your opinion on congratulating him by saying, “Insha Allaah you will continue to do well this year” so as to avoid saying Kull ‘aam wa antum bi khayr (approx. “season’s greetings”) or “Happy New Year” etc?.

Praise be to Allaah.
It is not permissible for a Muslim to eat things that the Jews and Christians make on their festivals, or what they give him as a gift on their festivals, because that is cooperating with them and joining in with them in this evil, as is explained in question no. 12666.

It is not permissible for him to congratulate them on their festivals in any way whatsoever, because that implies approval of their festival and not denouncing them, and helping them to manifest their symbols and propagate their innovation, and sharing their happiness during their festivals, which are innovated festivals that are connected to false beliefs that are not approved of in Islam. See also question no. 47322.

And Allaah knows best.

On joining in on Christmas and new years (New years being a Calendar thing really) Islam Q&A

I see many “Muslims” joining in Christmas and other celebrations. Is there any daleel from the Quran and Sunnah that I can present to them to show that these are indeed very sinful practices?.

Praise be to Allaah.
It is not permissible to join in the kaafir festivals for the following reasons:

Firstly: because this entails imitating or resembling them, and “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood). This is a serious warning. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-‘Aas said: Whoever lives in the land of the mushrikeen and celebrates their Nawrooz (New Year) and their Mahrajaan (festivals), and imitates them until he dies, he will be a loser on the Day of Resurrection.

Secondly: taking part in their festivals is a kind of befriending them and showing love for them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them… “[al-Maa’idah 5:51]
“O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them” [al-Mumtahanah 60:1]

Thirdly: festivals are the matter of religion and beliefs, not the matter of worldly customs, as is indicated by the hadeeth: “Every nation has its Eid, and this is our Eid.” Their Eid or festival reflects their corrupt beliefs of Kufr and Shirk.

Fourthly: “And those who do not witness falsehood, and if they pass by some evil play or evil talk, they pass it by with dignity” [al-Furqaan 25:72 – interpretation of the meaning]. The scholars interpreted this aayah was referring to the festivals of the mushrikeen. It is not permissible to give any of them cards for their festivals, or to sell them cards or any of the other things they need for their festivals such as lights, trees or food – including turkey, candy canes, etc.

We have already answered a similar question, for more details please see Question #947.

Some clarification on taking non Muslims as friends. In case anyone wasn’t certain on that. This one helps to explain the ethnic cleansing we see of non Muslims throughout Europe and North America in areas where Muslims tend to concentrate themselves.

From Muslim Q&A
Clarification of the important rule: it is haraam to take kaafirs as close friends and protectors
We hope that you will be able to explain, with examples, what is meant by the phrase, “Taking kaafirs as close friends and protectors is haraam.”

Praise be to Allaah.

Yes, examples will certainly explain and clarify what is meant, so we will move straight on to quoting some of the most important points that the scholars and leaders of da’wah have said about different ways of showing friendship towards kaafirs.

Accepting their kufr and doubting that it is kufr at all, or refraining from labelling them as kaafirs, or praising their religion. Allaah says about the kufr of the one who accepts them (interpretation of the meaning): “… but such as open their breasts to disbelief…” [al-Nahl 16:106]. Allaah says, making it obligatory to label the kaafirs as such (interpretation of the meaning): “… Whoever disbelieves in Taaghoot [false deities] and believes in Allaah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break…” [al-Baqarah 2:256]. Allaah says about the munaafiqoon (hypocrites) who prefer the kuffaar to the Muslims (interpretation of the meaning) “… [they] say to the disbelievers that they are better guided as regards the way than the believers (Muslims).” [al-Nisa’ 4:51].

Referring to them for judgement. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… they wish to got for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taaghoot (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them…” [al-Nisa’ 4:60]

Befriending and liking them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “You will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger…” [al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

More below….
Inclining towards them, relying upon them and taking them as a support. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And incline not towards those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you…” [Hood 11:113]

Helping and supporting them against the Muslims. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “The believers, men and women, are awliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another…” [al-Tawbah 9:71]. He also says of the kuffaar that they are “ but awliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) to one another…” [al-Maa’idah 5:51]. And He says (interpretation of the meaning): “…And if any amongst you takes them as awliya’, then surely he is one of them.” [al-Maa’idah 5:51].

Becoming members of their societies, joining their parties, increasing their numbers, taking their nationalities (except in cases of necessity), serving in their armies or helping to develop their weapons.

Bringing their laws and rules to the Muslim countries. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Do they then seek the judgement of the Days of Ignorance?…” [al-Maa’idah 5:50]

Taking them as friends in general terms, taking them as helpers and supporters, and throwing in one’s lot with them. Allaah forbids all this, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but awliya’ to one another…” [al-Maa’idah 5:51].

Compromising with them and being nice to them at the expense of one’s religion. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so that they (too) would compromise with you.” [al-Qalam 68:9]. This includes sitting with them and entering upon them at the time when they are making fun of the Signs of Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And it has already been revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the Verses of Allaah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them), certainly in that case you would be like them…” [al-Nisa’ 4:140]

Trusting them and taking them as advisors and consultants instead of the believers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! Take not as (your) bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made clear to you the aayaat (proofs, evidence, verses), if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e., you believe in the Tawraat and the Injeel, while they disbelieve in your Book (the Qur’aan)]. And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: ‘Perish in your rage. Certainly Allaah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets).’ If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it…” [Aal ‘Imran 3:118-120].

Imaam Ahmad and Muslim reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to (the battle of) Badr, and a man from among the mushrikeen followed him and caught up with him at al-Harrah. He said, “I wanted to follow you and join you, and have some of the war-booty with you.” (The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) said: “Do you believe in Allaah and His Messenger?” He said, “No.” He said, “Go back, I do not need help from a mushrik.”

From these texts it is clear that we are forbidden to appoint kaafirs to positions whereby they could find out the secrets of the Muslims and plot against them by trying to do all kinds of harm.

Putting them in administrative positions where they are bosses of Muslims and can humiliate them, run their affairs and prevent them from practising their religion. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… and never will Allaah grant to the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.” [al-Nisa’ 4:141]. Imaam Ahmad reported that Abu Moosa al-Ash’ari (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “I said to ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him). ‘I have a Christian scribe.’ He said, ‘What is wrong with you, may Allaah strike you dead! Have you not heard the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning), “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but awliya’ to one another…” [al-Maa’idah 5:51]”? Why do you not employ a haneef [i.e., a Muslim]?’ I said, ‘O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, I benefit from his work and he keeps his religion to himself.’ He said, ‘I will never honour them when Allaah has humiliated them, and I will never bring them close to me when Allaah has expelled them from His mercy.’”

Similarly, we should not employ them in Muslim homes where they can see our private matters and they bring our children up as kaafirs. This is what is happening nowadays when kaafirs are brought to Muslim countries as workers, drivers, servants and nannies in Muslim homes and families.

Neither should we send our children to kaafir schools, missionary institutions and evil colleges and universities, or make them live with kaafir families.

Imitating the kaafirs in dress, appearance, speech, etc., because this indicates love of the person or people imitated. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever imitates a people is one of them.”

It is forbidden to imitate the kaafirs in customs, habits and matters of outward appearance and conduct that are characteristic of them. This includes shaving the beard, letting the moustache grow long, and speaking their languages, except when necessary, as well as matters of clothing, food and drink, etc.

Staying in their countries when there is no need to do so. Allaah forbade the weak and oppressed Muslims to stay among the kaafirs if they are able to migrate. He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): ‘In what (condition) were you?’ They reply, ‘We were weak and oppressed on earth.’ They (angels) say: ‘Was not the earth of Allaah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?’ Such men will find their abode in Hell –what an evil destination! Except the weak ones among men, women and children, who cannot devise a plan, nor are the able to direct their way.” [al-Nisa’ 4:97-98].

Nobody will be excused for staying in a kaafir country except for those who are truly weak and oppressed and cannot migrate, or those who stay among them for a valid religious purpose such as da’wah and spreading Islam in their countries.

It is forbidden to live among them when there is no need to do so. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I disown the one who stays among the mushrikeen.”

Travelling to their countries for vacations and leisure purposes. But going there for a legitimate reason – such as medical treatment, trade, and learning specialized skills that cannot be obtained in any other way – is permitted in cases of need, and when the need has been fulfilled, it is obligatory to return to the Muslim world.

This permission is also given under the condition that the would-be traveller has sufficient knowledge to dispel his doubts, to control his physical desires, to demonstrate his religion, to be proud of being Muslim, to keep away from evil places, and to be aware and cautious of the plots of his enemies. It is also permissible, and even obligatory, to travel to their lands for the sake of da’wah and spreading Islam.

Praising them and their civilization and culture, defending them, and admiring their behaviour and skills, without taking note of their false ideology and corrupt religion. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And strain not your eyes in longing for the things We have given for enjoyment to various groups of them (disbelievers), the splendour of the life of this world that We may test them thereby. But the provision (good reward in the Hereafter) of your Lord is better and more lasting.” [Ta-Ha 20:131]. It is also forbidden to honour them, give them titles of respect, initiate greetings to them, give them the best seats in gatherings, and give way to them in the street. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not be the first to greet a Jew or a Christian (do not initiate the greeting), and if you meet one of them in the street, then push him to the narrowest part of the way.”

Forsaking the Islamic calendar and using their calendar, especially since it reflects their rituals and festivals, as is the case with the Gregorian (Western) calendar, which is connected to the supposed date of the birth of the Messiah (peace be upon him), which is an innovation that they have fabricated and that has nothing to do with the religion of ‘Eesa (Jesus). Using this calendar implies approval of their festivals and symbols.

In order to avoid all of that, when the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) established a calendar for the Muslims during the time of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), they ignored all the systems of the kuffaar and created a new calendar starting from the date of the Prophet’s Hijrah. This indicates that it is obligatory to differ from the kuffaar in this matter and others where it is the matter of distinct characteristics. And Allaah is the Source of Help.
Taking part in their holidays and festivals, helping them to celebrate them, congratulating them on these occasions or attending places where such celebrations are held. The phrase al-zoor [falsehood] in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning) “And those who do not witness falsehood…” [al-Furqaan 25:72] was interpreted as meaning the festivals of the kuffaar.

Using their names that have bad meanings. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) changed names whose meanings involved shirk, such as ‘Abd al-‘Uzza and ‘Abd al-Ka’bah.
Seeking forgiveness for them and asking Allaah for mercy for them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allaah’s forgiveness for the mushrikeen, even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in s state of disbelief).” [al-Tawbah 9:113]

These examples should give a clear picture of what is meant by the prohibition of forming close friendships with the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep our belief sound and our faith strong. And Allaah is the Source of Help.

Islam Q&A

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Friday, December 26, 2008

Are Muslims allowed to make friends with Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims?

Unbelievers are described by Muhammad (in the Qur'an) as "the vilest of animals" and "losers." Christians and Jews are hated by Allah to the extent that they are destined for eternal doom as a result of their beliefs. It would make no sense for Muhammad to then recommend them to be taken in as friends by Muslims.

In fact, the Qur'an plainly commands believers not to take unbelievers as friends.

The Qur'an:
Sura (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Sura (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.

Sura (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah..."

Sura (3:118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand." This verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but it establishes the deep-seated paranoia that the rest of the world is out to get them.

Sura (9:23) - "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers" Even family members are not to be taken as friends if they do not accept Islam. (This is the mildest interpretation of this verse from the 9th Sura, which also advocates "slaying the unbeliever wherever ye find them").

Sura (53:29) - "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."

Sura (3:85) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."

Sura (3:10) - "(As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire." Those who do not believe in Muhammad are but fuel for the fire of Hell (also 66:6, 2:24. 21:98).

Sura (7:44) - "The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: "We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord's promises true?" They shall say, "Yes"; but a crier shall proclaim between them: "The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers" Muslims in heaven will amuse themselves by looking down on non-Muslims in Hell and mocking them while they are being tortured (see 22:19-22.

Sura (1:5-7) - "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray" This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day. "Those who earn Thine anger" specifically refers to Jews and "those who go astray" refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749)).

From the Hadith:

Muslim (1:417) - Taken to mean that one's own relatives should not be taken as friends if they are not Muslim.

Abu Dawud (41:4815) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend."

Bukhari (59:572) - "O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you."

Ishaq 262 - "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse"

Ishaq 252 - The story of a young man who converts to Islam after hearing Muhammad. He then tells his own father that he can no longer have anything to do with him because, "I have become a Muslim and follow the religion of Muhammad." (To maintain a relationship with his son, the father "converts" as well). This is an important passage because it establishes that the principle of shunning is based merely on the status of non-Muslims as unbelievers, not on their relations toward Muslims. In this case, the father desperately loved his son and meant him no harm.

Additional Notes:
Even though they are explicitly kufr (unbelievers, Sura 5:17, Sura 4:44-59) Jews and Christians are given special status in Islam. So, if Muhammad warned believers against taking them as friends, then it surely is not permissible for Muslims to befriend atheists or those of other religions.

Some Muslims interpret this to mean that they should not even act friendly toward nonbelievers. (Most, fortunately, do not).

Some Muslims are embarrassed by verse 5:51 and have gone to elaborate lengths to modify its intent by interpreting the word 'friend' as "guardian" or "protector" - which are just two of several legitimate translations of the Arabic word. According to these apologists, the verse is referring to a Muslim's allegiance to a non-Muslim government (which is not all that comforting either). This appears to be refuted by the verse itself, which distinguishes between friends and protectors and instructs Muslims to avoid both.

Other apologists point to (Sura 60:8-9) which says that Allah doesn't necessarily forbid showing kindness to unbelievers, but to shun the ones "who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out." This is a definite reference to the Meccans, whose leaders expelled Muhammad and his handful of followers from Mecca (following his declaration of war against them). The verse was narrated shortly after their arrival in Medina, when is was necessary for the Muslims to build alliances with non-Muslims in order to survive. The verses quoted above from Suras 9 and 5 are given much later, when Muslims had power, and they expand the scope of unfriendliness to include those who are not Muslim.

Modern apologists such as Jamal Badawi try to cloud the straightforward interpretation of verse 5:51 by pointing out that Muslims are allowed to take non-Muslims as marriage partners, thus implying friendship. In fact, verse 2:221 explicitly forbids Muslims from marrying unbelievers, even though verse 5:5 allows it (Allah's change of mind corresponded somewhat curiously with Muhammad's own desire to marry a non-Muslim woman). Yusuf Ali reconciles the contradiction by saying that non-Muslims wives are "expected" to become Muslim.

In any event, only Muslim men are allowed to marry outside the faith. The women they marry relinquish control over their own lives, even to the extent that they cannot raise their own children in their own faith. All children must be raised Muslim. The non-Muslim woman also agrees to a lifetime of sexual servitude, and may be beaten if she does not submit.

This certainly doesn't sound like friendship to the rest of us. If your local Muslim cheerleader tries to pretend otherwise, then simply ask if a non-Muslim man may enter into this sort of "friendship" with a Muslim woman... then sit back and watch the backpedaling.

On the whole, Islam is very clear in teaching that there is no equality between believers and unbelievers, and hence no basis for a relationship of peers. Those who do not profess Muhammad are intended to exist in subjugation to those who do, then spend eternity in Hell. This does not preclude Muslims from acting friendly toward others, of course, but this does not constitute friendship as it is generally understood in the modern world.


Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas to Dhivehi Christians and those who support their right to freedom of belief...

Dhivehistan Report wishes the oppressed and persecuted minority of Dhivehi Christians and those who wish them well a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Eight-Year-Old Girl Must Wait Until Puberty to Get Divorce from 58-Year-Old Husband

A Saudi court has rejected a plea to divorce an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man who is 58, saying the case should wait until the girl reaches puberty, a lawyer involved told AFP.

"The judge has dismissed the plea (filed by the mother) because she does not have the right to file such a case, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty," lawyer Abdullah Jtili told AFP in a telephone interview after Saturday's court decision.
The divorce plea was filed in August by the girl's divorced mother with a court at Unayzah, 220 kilometres (135 miles) north of Riyadh just after the marriage contract was signed by the father and the groom.
"She doesn't know yet that she has been married," Jtili said then of the girl who was about to begin her fourth year at primary school.
Relatives who did not wish to be named told AFP that the marriage had not yet been consummated, and that the girl continued to live with her mother. They said that the father had set a verbal condition by which the marriage is not consummated for another 10 years, when the girl turns 18.
The father had agreed to marry off his daughter for an advance dowry of 30,000 riyals (8,000 dollars), as he was apparently facing financial problems, they said.
The father was in court and he remained adamant in favour of the marriage, they added.
Lawyer Jtili said he was going to appeal the verdict at the court of cassation, the supreme court in the ultra-conservative kingdom which applies Islamic Sharia law in its courts.
Arranged marriages involving pre-adolescents are occasionally reported in the Arabian Peninsula, including in Saudi Arabia where the strict conservative Wahabi version of Sunni Islam holds sway and polygamy is common.

Continue here at Yid With A Lid

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The Arab and Muslim Indifference Regarding the Suffering in Darfur

Muslims suffer in the hands of an Arab regime, then there is barely any condemnation of the violence and crimes in the Arab and Muslim world, notes Savo Heleta.
When Muslims suffer around the world in the hands of Americans, Russians, Serbs, or Israelis, the Arab and Muslim countries are very active in condemning the attacks and violence. Their governments complain and raise funds, diplomats protest, the media report, and the citizens demonstrate against "crusaders and infidels."
But when Muslims suffer in the hands of an Arab regime, then there is barely any condemnation of the violence and crimes in the Arab and Muslim world.
Since 2003, Sudan's western province of Darfur is an epicenter of a conflict between the mainly "African" rebels and the Arab-controlled Sudanese government and their proxy militias. It is estimated that about 200,000 people have died in the conflict from fighting, disease, and starvation. The UN and aid agencies estimate that over two million Darfurians, out of a population of about six million, are living in refugee camps in Darfur and neighboring countries.
The Sudan's ruling elite portrays itself as an "Arab" regime both at home and abroad. Some would say that this explains the lack of concern for the Darfur conflict in the Arab world. But things change when we consider the fact that both sides in the Darfur conflict are Muslim and that the Darfurians, both Arabs and Africans, are Sudan's most devout Muslims.
Even though Muslims are the victims in Darfur, the fact that they are the victims of an Arab regime prevents Arab and Muslim countries from acknowledging the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, let alone speaking against the horrendous crimes committed against innocent civilians in this Sudanese province.

Many people in the Arab world don't even know about the conflict and human suffering in Darfur as there is hardly any news about Darfur in the Arab media. The only exceptions are the Aljazeera and Alarabya news networks.
According to Lawrence Pintak, a journalist and Arab media expert, the Darfur conflict is not covered by the Arab media as "it does not fit the template of Arabs being the victims and other people the aggressors."
The involvement of many international humanitarian organizations in Darfur and the attention given to the conflict by the Western governments and media are "perceived by a large portion of Arab public opinion as yet another 'Western intervention' in an Arab country's affairs." Some Arab journalists even claim that the Darfur conflict is nothing but a "Zionist-American conspiracy to carve up Sudan and plunder its resources."
Rami Khouri, a Lebanese journalist, writes that the silence in the Arab world "is not specific to Darfur or Sudan, but rather reflects a wider malaise that has long plagued the region: Arab governments tend to stay out of each other's way when any one of them is accused of wrongdoing, and most Arab citizens have been numbed into helplessness in the face of public atrocities or criminal activity in their societies."
The Arab countries and organizations such as the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Countries have shamefully ignored the conflict in Darfur. Not one Arab or Muslim leader "have spoken out against Khartoum's policies in Darfur" that have targeted innocent civilians, destroyed entire communities, displaced millions, and killed 200,000 people.
Some Arab and Muslim organizations and countries publicly support the Sudanese government and its actions in Darfur. In 2004, the Arab League rejected any sanctions imposed on Sudan. Pakistan was one of the countries that blocked any meaningful actions by the UN to stop the Darfur conflict, claiming at the UN Security Council that "the human suffering in Darfur was insufficient to provoke serious reflection on whether Sudan was fulfilling its responsibilities to its citizens."

After the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May 2006, many Arab countries promised to financially contribute to Darfur's development. However, no money was ever received from the Arab Development Fund and "the results of development and humanitarian meetings were not translated into action in Darfur." The fact that "Canada has pledged more aid [to Darfur's displaced people] than all the Arab countries put together" says it all.

Continue reading at Middle East Online

Chag Chanukkah

חג חנוכה שמח

...to all Jewish readers of Dhivehistan Report

Monday, December 22, 2008

80-Year-Old Woman Must Have Father's Permission to Marry...

AFTER a life of spinsterhood, Setareh, an 80-year-old Iranian, assumed she was fated to see out her remaining days alone and was preparing to move into an old people's home for company.

When the boy-next-door from her youth suddenly reappeared and proposed, she thought her long-forgotten dreams of marriage were about to be fulfilled.

But Iran's laws require a father to give permission before a daughter can marry.

Now the lovestruck octogenarian has asked a Tehran court to establish whether her father, who abandoned her when she was two, is dead or alive so her wedding can go ahead.

The legal obstacle came to light when Setareh and her betrothed, Jamshid, tried to tie the knot at a registrar's office, only to be told she needed written agreement or proof of death of her father.

It was a cruel blow to the couple, who had been childhood sweethearts but were forced to scrap plans to wed after Setareh's mother protested that it would lead to her being left alone. Setareh resigned herself to living with her mother.

Appearing before Tehran's family court, Setareh, a former teacher, explained that Jamshid subsequently married another woman who had since died.

The pair rekindled their affair just before Setareh was due to move into a care home.
"Seeing Jamshid made my heart start beating faster and suddenly the passion of youth returned," she said.

"When I heard him proposing to me once again, I thanked God for the second chance because I had found another spur for the remaining days of my life."

Judge Mahmoud Baghal Shirvan asked officials to examine the father's status and pronounce whether he is dead or alive. If he is found to have died, the court is expected to permit Setareh to marry.

Her plight is an example of what campaigners say is systematic discrimination against women under Iranian law.

But the state-linked Iranian Women's News Agency said women need their father's permission to protect them from "emotional" marriage decisions.

The Age

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Pakistani jihadists massacre innocents in Mumbai, and in response Pakistani protesters burn in effigy...India's Prime Minister

Here again we see Muslims getting much angrier over anti-jihad efforts by non-Muslims than they ever seem to get about jihad violence itself. "Pakistan protesters burn Indian PM effigy," from AFP, December 19 (thanks to JihadWatch):

Singh: Feeling the heat

Hundreds of Pakistani protesters have burnt an Indian flag and an effigy of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, underscoring mounting tensions in the wake of the Mumbai attacks.

Tribal elders, politicians and residents attended the anti-India rally in the south-western town of Chaman, in Baluchistan province on the border with Afghanistan.

"India wants to steal our water in Kashmir, and that is why it is piling pressure on Pakistan following the attacks in Mumbai," local politician Naseer Ahmed Bacha Khan told the protesters in Chaman....

Friday, December 19, 2008

Egyptian Cleric Wagdi Ghneim Demonstrates Proper Spitting in Fending Off Khunzub, the Devil Responsible for Spoiling Muslim Prayers

Arab Muslims and their trained collaborateurs (trained at Egypts Al-azhar, Medina University-actually madharusaa) are teaching Maldivians a lot of disgusting nonsense.
I have seen a lot of spitting going during Ramazan. Was that fending off Khunzub or just trying not to ingest anything?
I hope that Maldivian Muslim bloggers will enlighten me on this........

You have to sign up for free and log in...click here to learn how to spit correctly to fend off Khunzub!!!!

Rights experts attack Islam defamation drive at UN

The United Nations should stop passing resolutions, largely promoted by Islamic countries, calling for laws against "defamation of religion", according to international experts on freedom of expression.

The four experts -- from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the United Nations itself -- said such laws were often used to shield religious leaders from criticism and to suppress religious minorities and non-believers.

"International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of 'defamation of religion'," they declared.

The statement was issued on the website of the pan-European security organisation, the OSCE, as clear signs emerged in Geneva that Islamic states and their backers aim to get a call for a defamation ban into a key U.N. document on racism.

The experts were Frank La Rue, a Guatemalan who is the Human Rights Council's investigator for freedom of expression, Hungarian writer Miklos Haraszti of the OSCE, South African jurist Faith Pansy Tlakula of the African Union, and Catalina Botero of the Organisation of American States.

"The concept of 'defamation of religions' does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals," they said.

"Religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own," they added. Limits on freedom of expression should only be used to bar advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred amounting to inciting violence.

Countries which had such limits to protect religion, they said, had often used them "to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and non-believers."

The 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council -- where Islamic countries backed usually by most African states, Russia, China and Cuba have a built-in majority -- passes resolutions annually calling governments to act against religious defamation.

The U.N.'s General Assembly, where the same informal alliance operates on the issue, has adopted similar non-enforceable resolutions each year since 2005, although this year support for them has waned.

Islamic states say the resolutions are not aimed at imposing drastic limitations on free speech but at stopping publications like those of Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed that sparked bloody protests by Muslims in some countries.

But a discussion paper from Algeria's envoy to the U.N. in Geneva setting out ideas to be included in a U.N. declaration on racism suggests "seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion" ought to be banned by any state.
The declaration is to be issued at a U.N. conference in Geneva in April to update an earlier anti-racism document issued by a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, which some countries and rights bodies said was marred by anti-Semitism. (Editing by Jonathan Lynn and Jon Boyle)

From Reuters

Thursday, December 18, 2008

EGYPT: 97% of Married women undergo Genital Mutilation

The Arab missionaries and their trained local collaborateurs (I mean the Adhaalath beardos and other assorted wannabe-sheiks) have been very successful. How far will copying the arabs go?
Islamic missionaries from Egypt have been coming every year to give "Waul" to Maldivians.

Genital mutilation is on the rise in Maldives. Will we attain 100% mutilation in our effort to make Maldives a 100% Islamic nation?

(ANSAmed) - CAIRO, JUNE 27 - A total 97% of the married Egyptian women has suffered genital mutilation, and the area where this practice is most frequent (99%) is in the governorship of Qena, in the south of the country. In Matrouh, on the Mediterranean coast towards Libya, the lowest percentage (25%) is registered. According to the study 'National Project Against Female Circumcision', held by the Minister of Health in cooperation with the United Nations DAG Programme, the percentage is lower in the urban centres (94.6%), higher in the country (98.8%), while in the Sinai it decreases to 37%, Egyptian independent daily 'Al Masri el Yom' reports. Among uneducated women, 99.1% have suffered the circumcision; among educated women (secondary school or university), the percentage gets down to 94%. The percentage of women in favour of the circumcision is 85% in Upper Egypt compared to 50% in the North; 50% of the educated women and 87.5% of the uneducated women are also in favour. Two days ago the Chief Mufti of Egypt said that the "harmful tradition of the female circumcision is prohibited by Islam", after the death of an 11-year old girl following an excessive dose of anesthetic given during the operation. The wife of the Egiptian president, Suzanne Mubarak, who is in charge of the government's consulting commission for Maternity and Childhood, launched today a "national campaign against female circumcision". (ANSAmed).

The Qur'an's Sex-Slave Problem: Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals?

Either concubines are on the same level with dogs and donkeys, or Allah's "perfect" book has a serious flaw.

Many are now aware that the Koran—that is, Allah’s word—permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].” There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked—or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: “Ankahu [marry]…ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].”

Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.”

For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only “inanimate objects” or “brute beasts” should be referred to with ma (what).

Does this suggest that the Koran’s Arabic—touted as the most perfect Arabic—is flawed? Of course, no Muslim would allow for that. Nor need they, as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category. Musnad Ibn Hanbal (vol. 2, p. 2992), for example, records Muhammad saying “Women, dogs, and donkeys annul a man’s prayer.” Indeed, in Qurtubi’s same Tafsir (vol.15, p.172), after examining such hadiths, he writes, "A Woman may be likened to a sheep—even a cow or a camel—for all are ridden.”

From Jihad Watch

'Gender-Equality' Declared UnIslamic Term...

The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has declared the term ‘gender equality’, used in Section 7(a) of the National Commission for Status of Women Ordinance of 2000, ‘vague and un-Islamic’ and called for its repeal.
In its review of laws report for 2008, which is yet to be presented to the government, the CII said that instead of using ‘ambiguous’ terms, Islamic principles of equity and justice should be implemented in letter and spirit in gender-related matters.
The council, which had opposed the constitution of the NCSW, further recommended that the commission’s recommendations in Section 7(b) of the ordinance should be “in consonance with established Islamic laws”.
The council declared that the repeated use of term ‘gender equality’ as an ultimate target by the commission was ‘impractical thinking’.
It explained that the concept of ‘gender equality’ was impracticable because of ‘distinct differences’ in anatomy and physical and mental capabilities. The CII described the term as ‘absurd and un-Islamic’.


Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Arab Education System is Archaic and Medieval

Unless the Arab states drastically change their education systems, they will stay backward, weak, and a breeding machine of parrots and fanatics. In a program on the current Arab education system on the German-French TV, Arte, 1 December, 2007, Sheikh Saleh Al Fozan, a leading member of the Saudi Council of Senior Ulema (religious leaders), said, “Some of our own people want us to become like the infidels, like the Jews and Christians, Allah condemn them. They want us to renounce our Godly religious beliefs and follow in their footsteps by changing our educational curriculum that is base on the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet, peace be upon him. A parrot is one who repeats the demands of the enemies of Islam that we should stop teaching the Koran so that we abandon our faith.” This came in the wake of publishing the UN Arab Human Development Report 2006 authored by a group of distinguished Arab intellectuals.

Commenting on pressure form the United States on Saudi Arabia since Sept. 11 to reform its educational system, Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi Crown Prince told the Saudi TV on 16 Sept. 2005, “America and the rest of the infidel world should go to hell. We are not going to change our education system which is based on the best religion of the world. We are proud of being Muslims and having an Islamic education system.”

Both the Al Saudi clan which has ruled over Saudi Arabia since its foundation in the 1940s and the religious establishment dominated by Wahabbism (a kind of radical, fanatic, simplistic interpretation of Islam) have used dogmatic Islam to enforce their regime and run the country.

At Saudi schools and universities, words like “alcohol, pigs, and prostitutes” are none existent in English language books. The “evolution theory” is not mentioned or taught at all. “Jewish people” in all books and levels are condemned as “enemies of Allah”. The Western world is presented as “decadent”, “corrupt”, and “atheist”.

In addition to an archaic education system which lacks critical thinking and research, more than 60 million Arab adults remain illiterate, including 55% of all Arab women.

In almost all Arab schools and universities, students are not allowed to question what they are taught. They are expected to accept everything they read and hear from their teachers and memorize to a great extent what they are taught. Critical thinking is penalized and students are patronized. In fact, the Arab regimes have rejected Western methods of education such as critical thinking and liberal thought. They fear that these methods could spawn critics who would question the existence of the ruling regimes.

Students face other constraints. There are little, if any, extra-curricular activities, nothing to exercise their fine motor skills or hand and eye coordination. Classrooms are poorly-equipped and dull.

Private schools and universities are by and large not much better off. Graham Collins who used to work as course coordinator at the Gulf University for Science and Education (GUST) in Kuwait told me, “GUST is supposed to follow the curriculum of Missouri University. But it does not. The owners of this university replicate the same curricula and teaching methods used by traditional Arab universities. The whole thing is a farce. The façade is American but the content is very Arab. GUST and other local universities are degraded to diploma mills.”

Parroting what they were taught in Arab schools? And they have their own Ministry now!

A despotic education system coupled with dogmatic religious teaching in all Arab countries have produced passive learners, simply parrots. The majority of university graduates are appointed as teachers who follow in the steps of their former teachers. The Arab education system is moving in a vicious circle.

Continue reading here

Blind Man Turned Away from Restaurant as Guide Dog Offends Muslim Staff...

Alun Elder-Brown, a recruitment executive, said he was left feeling "like a piece of dirt" after being barred from bringing the animal into Kirthon Restaurant in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on religious grounds.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association said the decision was illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act and Mr Elder-Brown, 51, is now considering suing the establishment in The Pantiles.
It follows a series of successful prosecutions of Muslim taxi drivers who refused to carry guide dogs in their cars because they considered them unclean on religious grounds.
Mr Elder-Brown was taking his girlfriend out to celebrate her birthday with her five year-old daughter last week when he was told he would have to leave his dog, Finn, tied up outside.
He showed a card issued by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers certifying he and his dog were allowed into any premises but an argument ensued and the owners threatened to call the police if he did not leave.
"It was humiliating and degrading, especially as there were a lot of people around me," he said.
"I was made to feel like a piece of dirt. They told me I couldn't come in because it was against their religious beliefs to have a dog in the restaurant.
"They then said I could leave Finn tied up outside. I stayed calm but when they threatened to call police I left."
He added: "It was horrible. It put a dampener on the whole celebration."
Under the Disability Discrimination Act it is illegal to refuse to serve a disabled person of give them a diminished level of service because of their disability.
Chris Dyson of Guide Dogs for the Blind said: "We are extremely concerned and disappointed that Alun was refused access to this restaurant.
"We very much hope that this restaurant will reconsider its decision and get in touch with the charity so that we can give them a better understanding of their requirements under the law and explain the important role that the guide dog plays for Alun."
The restaurant's owner, Amenur Abdussamad, was not immediately available for comment.
From The Telegraph

A blind man with his guide dog

Monday, December 15, 2008

Australian Muslims want Apartheid!

The Islamic community plans to build a Muslim-only housing development and recreation centre as part of a $10 million complex in Rivervale.

Islamic Council of WA spokesman Rahim Ghauri said the group had an architect-designed concept plan for a six-storey housing development, an underground carpark and a hall for weddings, conferences and religious and recreational activities.

Mr Ghauri rejected claims the housing would further isolate sectors of the Muslim community from mainstream society, claiming the venue would be used to teach Islamic youth how to become good Australian citizens.

And the council’s religious adviser, Abdul Jalil Ahmad, said it was useful for different religious or ethnic groups to have separate residential enclaves so their customs and exotic cooking smells did not offend neighbours.

“It’s ideal for any ethnic group because you can deal with each other in an easier way,” Mr Ahmad said.

“In South Africa, because of apartheid, all different communities were set up and it worked well. It kept people separate. We can be together in terms of our contribution to the wider community.”

Maybe many Maldivian students in WA will move there!!!

Continue reading here at The West Australian.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Real Men Do it Standing Up !?!!

If only devout Muslims were as interested in stopping terrorism as they are in figuring out how Allah wants them to urinate. . . What a wonderful world this may be...


In most mixed sex households, the toilet seat up or down dilemma is often a subject of controversy.
Most often a male urinates while standing. Frequently, the male is expected by the female member to ensure the seat is always lowered after use, and criticize him if he forgets. There are generally two justifications:
1. The seat is used in the lowered position ¾ of the time anyway

2. The female will fall into the bowl while trying to sit down There is debate over whether each justification is fair or reasonable. (source)

Anand Venkataraman even conducted an academic study of the subject:


No such problems in Muslim households: the toilet seat is always down. Lucky Islamic women, who don’t have such aggravations in their lives. OK, so they are beaten, raped and often kept prisoner in their own home, but hey, what’s that compared with the toilet dilemma!
Come to think of it, Muslim men also wear long flowing robes. Again, just like a woman!

Could it be that Muslim men really want to be women, but can’t admit to it, so compensate by growing long beards and being overly aggressive?
We hear a lot about penis envy.
Could it be that Muslim men suffer from vagina envy?
Is that why they insist on cutting out all of a woman’s external genitalia?
Read the complete article here at Australian Islamist Monitor

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Muslim Preacher: Christmas 'The Pathway to Hellfire'...

The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah.

The 41-year-old shocked Christians and even those of his own faith by branding yuletide festivities as "the pathway to hellfire".

Choudary, who is chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, ruled out all celebrations, including having a Christmas tree, decorating the house or eating turkey.

In the sermon posted on an Islamic website, he said: "In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas.

"Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.
"Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.

"Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.
"How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?

"The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.

"Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas."

Choudary is Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shari'ah and a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Earlier this year, he led a meeting at the heart of the area where the liquid bombers lived, which warned of a British September 11.

Exposed Nipple Leaves Islamists Hot and Bothered (London)...

The image shows a woman in a full-length burkha – but instead of having a cut-out for the eyes, the cut-out exposes one of her nipples.
The artwork has already been condemned by the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland (UMO) as "blasphemous, cheap porn".

A spokesman said: "At a time when tensions are already heightened, gallery owners shouldn't be exhibiting artwork like this - it's offensive, inflammatory. and degrading to Muslim women.
"Photographer Yeon Lee, defended her image, titled Seeing is Believing, claiming it "highlights the ways women are categorised in male-dominated societies".
But the UMO said the image could spark similar angry scenes to those in Denmark in September 2005 when a newspaper printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed portraying him as a terrorist.
He said: "People will protest. It's blasphemous – the artist just wants to make some money – and it's not helpful in this current climate."Gallery owner James Freeman, who is exhibiting the image as part of a wider collection, called Five Years, from emerging international artists in North London", agreed the image had "shock value".
But he denied it was blasphemous.He said: "It's not ridiculing, or ironic, or degrading or perjorative. I don't think you could perceive any blasphemy in this.

To see photo of exposed nipple that has Islamists hot and bothered click here

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Racist, Arab-Supremacist Nature of Islam and non-Arab Muslims

There are many interesting ironies associated with Islam; the one that used to catch my eye most was that women, who are disdained in Islam, tend to be more devout Muslims than men. However, the irony that I now find even more interesting is that the non-Arabs in general tend to be more devout Muslims than the Arabs.
The Arabs commonly say: Aazana Allahu bil Islam, which means that 'Allah has made us (the Arabs) valued because of Islam'. The Arabs point of view is straight forward; they were insignificant Arab tribes in the desert of Arabia who later ruled a vast Islamic empire. I don’t think there are many Arabs who question the accuracy of the above statement; even some Arab atheists tend to agree with it despite their belief that Mohammed was a liar and brutal gang leader. However, the subject that the Arabs are far better off without Islam is beyond the scope of this article. But the question that springs to my mind whenever I hear the above Arabic adage is: can any other Muslim nation claim that Allah made them valued because of Islam? Can the Indians or the Iranians, who had a formidable empire in the seventh century, make such a claim?

Islam, a language-based religion

Islam is the only religion in the world that is completely based on a language. Islam can only survive in an Arabic language environment, if the Arabic language disappears, so does Islam. Learning the Arabic language is mandatory to all Muslims in order to read the Quran and perform the Islamic rituals.

Nowadays, almost all Muslims claim that their devotion to Islam is because they are convinced of its authenticity and dismiss the fact that they inherited it from their parents as a sheer coincidence. The Muslims’ claims suggest that they researched and studied their religion and found it to be flawless. Studying Islam entails reading the Quran carefully, in Arabic, and concluding that it is too good to be authored by humans, therefore, must be divine. Oddly enough, if you ask those ‘convinced’ Muslims for an explanation of any of the Quran’s contradictions or blunders they would refer you to Muslim scholars.

I explained in previous articles that when the Arabs had a free choice they did not like the Quran. After fourteen centuries, we still do not have convincing explanations to any of the hundreds of errors that litter the Quran. In addition to the errors, the Quran also contains some serious weaknesses in style that would not be acceptable by any decent author. It does not matter how good some verses are because the unprejudiced reader would never be convinced of the Quran in the presence of any error.

It is perfectly possible for an ordinary person who speaks little Arabic or no Arabic at all, to read the Quran and identify its contradictions or mistakes. That kind of critical assessment is within the reach of any impartial person who reads the Quran with judicious objectivity. However, it is not possible for the same person to read a few verses and claims they are so nicely composed and must be divine. Such an assertive conclusion depends on personal taste and requires thorough knowledge of the Arabic language and its literature, which most of the non-Arabs do not have. I am afraid that the claims of the non-Arab Muslims to be convinced of Islam are false claims that hide the uncomfortable reality that they believe in Islam because they take the Arabs’ word for it.

The language issue and the Quran

The Quran was revealed, or rather released, in the Quraysh language, which was the Arabic language as spoken by the Arabs of Mecca including Mohammed. Throughout Mohammed’s stay in Mecca there were no language issues at all because Mohammed had only to deal with his own clan who spoke his own language and in his own dialect. The dialect issue only surfaced after Mohammed assumed power in Yathrib and started to deal with the Arab tribes in distant regions of Arabia. Even though Arabic was spoken throughout Arabia, but different regions had different dialects, as would be expected in a country as vast as Arabia. It didn’t fit the Arabs’ tribal pride to be asked to speak another tribe’s dialect when it comes to reading the Quran. Mohammed didn’t want this issue to stop the Arabs from joining him so he allowed each tribe to read the Quran as they please in their own dialects. As with everything else, it was Allah who whispered to Mohammed to demonstrate that flexibility and give his permission to the tribes. The divine gesture worked well and preserved the national identity of each Arab tribe.

However, the above gesture and divine flexibility didn’t extend to other nations, it was a privilege only to the Arabs. All other nations must learn Arabic to read the Quran and practice Islam. At this point, it is remarkable to note that while the early Arabs felt offended by just being asked to speak a dialect other than own, today’s Muslims are happy to read the Quran, not in a different dialect, but in a completely foreign language, without feeling offended! The non-Arab Muslims accept this obvious bias towards the Arabs as a natural part of life.

This association between the Arabic language and Islam was a kind of divine windfall to the Arabs; they automatically became leaders in the world of Islam just because they can speak their own language! Even though other Muslim nations may produce some very good scholars, but unless those scholars learn the Arabic language perfectly well they won’t be highly credited in the Islamic world.

Signs of selfishness, tribalism and racism in Mohammed’s behaviour

Judged by the number of personal privileges that Mohammed granted himself, he was probably the most selfish leader in history. The following is only a small sample of those privileges:

  • Mohammed, through the Quran, granted himself the right to marry as many women as he wished but restricted the other Muslims to marry only four women. In addition Mohammed granted himself the right to have sex with women who offer themselves to him.

  • Mohammed granted himself the right to marry other Muslims’ widows but declared, through the Quran, that it is a sin for other Muslims to marry his own wives (after his death).

  • Mohammed declared that his shares from any war booty were 20%, the remaining 80% to be shared by the rest of the Muslims.

  • Mohammed considered himself to be the first among all human beings including the previous prophets. According to him, he was second only to Allah. As a matter of fact there was no difference between Islam and the other religions already practiced in Arabia except that in Islam Mohammed added his name next to Allah’s name.

  • Mohammed’s egocentricity extended to his immediate family, called aal Mohammed, for whom Muslims are required to pray in every Islamic prayer.

Mohammed’s Tribalism

Even though Mohammed’s own tribe, Quraysh, despised him and fought wars against him and did nothing to promote Islam, the evidence is that Mohammed preferred them to the rest of the Arabs. In fact, Mohammed preferred the tribe of Quraysh to the tribes of Yathrib who supported him, converted to Islam and fought on his side. Mohammed used the Arabs of Yarhrib, known as the Aws and Khazraj tribes, for his purposes but neither he nor any of his companions respected them. The Muslims frequently claim that there were social or political motives behind some of Mohammed’s marriages, which he used as a tool to strengthen his ties with the various tribes. From this perspective, it is noteworthy that Mohammed did not bother to marry from the Aws or Khazraj tribes. Mohammed preferred Quraysh, so did his influential companions, who all came from Quraysh. It is striking that while the Aws and Khazraj completely disappeared from history, the Quraysh Arabs ruled the Islamic empire (khilafa) until 1258 AD and they continue to rule some states up to our time. Mohammed believed that the Aws and Khazraj were politically too naive and too weak to be trusted to govern. Mohammed’s attitude towards the Aws and Khazraj reminds me with an interview I watched about ten years ago on Aljazeera in which the Islamic cleric AbuHamza was asked: why do you live in the west if you disrespect it that much? His answer was: “we Muslims consider the west like a toilet, we visit it because we need to, but once we finish we leave.”

Continue reading here at Islam Watch

Inferiority of Women Established by Science, Says Muslim Cleric...

Yemenite Cleric Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani Presents "Scientific" Proof that Women Cannot Talk and Remember Simultaneously.

Following are excerpts from an interview with Yemenite cleric Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani, which aired on Iqra TV on October 23, 2008:

Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani: Allah said, with regard to women bearing witness: "If two men are not available, then a man and two women, such as you choose as witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her." Some heretics – communists and other atheists – ridiculed [this verse], saying: How come a man's testimony equals that of two women? They used this to mock [the Muslims]. The Muslims used to respond that women are subject to menstruation, when their endurance and mental capacity for concentration are diminished. When a woman witnesses a killing or an accident, she becomes frightened, moves away, and sometimes even faints, and she cannot even watch the incident.


The American Time magazine, in its July 31, 1995 issue, published this picture from research about the brain functioning of men and women. This is the ma... This is the female brain, and this is an image of the male brain. What do we see? We find that in the case of women, this area... And there is another here... Two areas in a woman's brain are activated when she talks. As we can see, there are many centers of speech in a woman's brain. There is a center in each lobe, while in the case of a man, there is only one center, here. The opposite center does not operate during speech, because it is busy remembering. Both men and women have centers for speech and for memory. In the case of men, the center for speech is here, while the center for memory is here. When a man talks, his center for speech is active, and when he remembers something, his center for memory is active. On the other hand, when a woman wants to talk, she puts both centers into action. This may give us an explanation why women are more talkative.

What is the outcome of this? When a woman talks, she uses the part of the brain that contains the memory, because in the case of women, both centers function for speech and memory. So when a woman talks, she might use the part of the brain containing the memory for talking – and that's it, the data is lost. Therefore, if we need the testimony of women in cases pertaining to human lives, property, honor, or the stability of justice, we must take into consideration this fact of life in the nature of women.


Tuesday, December 09, 2008

What really happened in Yathrib?

Some Maldivians have no clue about what really happened in Yathrib ( renamed Medina). - "the Prophet Mohamed that I’ve read about and come to know of did co-exist with Jews in 7th century Yathrib."

But the Mumbai terrorists took Muhammad's words to heart:
"The Hour not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say " O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." - Bukhari 52:177

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Maldive Muslim implicated in the Islamic assault on Bombay

According to a Divehi language report by Niumatolla Idris in the Maldives’ biggest newspaper Haveeru, there is a Maldive connection to the recent Islamic assault on the Indian city of Mumbai.

A senior Lashkar-e-Toiba operative, Faisal Haroun attempted to smuggle arms into India with the help of Malé-based Maldive citizen Ali al-Shaam, the report added. Haveeru does not make it clear if Ali al-Shaam is a native Maldivian, a naturalised Islamic terrorist of foreign birth or simply someone given a Maldive passport of convenience. Despite its claim to being a one hundred percent Muslim country, the Maldives has so far avoided being identified with other Islamic terror-sponsoring countries. For that reason, Maldive passport holders do not face terrorism profiling when visiting non-Islamic countries.

It was also reported that al-Shaam collaborated with Haroun on acquiring an arms storage facility on an uninhabited island in the Maldive archipelago. There are close to a thousand such islands with easy boat access to major Indian ports. The Maldives’ closest neighbours are India in the north and the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in the south. Diego Garcia, the site of a top secret United States military facility is in BIOT.

A Maldive national, Ibrahim Fauzi, was one of the Islamic terror suspects captured in Pakistan and detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Islamic terrorists have been infiltrating Maldive mosques, urban areas and villages since late 1978. They have managed to force nearly four in every ten Maldive women into the Islamic burugaa veil in a climate that averages at 30 degree Celsius heat and 95 percent humidity. Up until now Maldive women took pride in their patriotism and did not give in to the burugaa, which is seen as a foreign piece of apparel.

Currently there are some Maldive islands that are outside the administrative control of the Maldive authorities. The inhabitants of these islands have pledged allegiance to the cause of worldwide jihad instead of the Maldive republic. An armed standoff with government police on one of those islands, Himendhoo in Ari Atoll some months ago resulted in arrests but the offenders were let of lightly by the former Gayoom dictatorship, at the behest of brotherly Islamic countries.

During Ramadan 2007, Islamic terrorists detonated a bomb in a park in Malé outside the city’s main mosque. Although there were no casualties, it was aimed at killing non-Muslim tourists, some of whom were seriously injured. The bombing coincided with the anniversary of the Battle of Badr, one of Mohamed’s early assaults on the non-Muslims of his own tribe in Mecca. The main perpetrators of the bombing were allowed to flee the Maldives and those who were apprehended were let off lightly.

In August the Maldives ratified a new constitution which, the world is persuaded to believe, is democratic. Maldives international human rights commitments are not fully addressed in this constitution. It disenfranchised and denaturalised non-Muslim Maldivians for the first time. Not a single member of parliament cast a dissenting vote against that particular constitutional clause, including members of the currently ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). One of the first acts of the new MDP-led government that assumed office in November was to block web access to Christian web sites. According to a report by Ibrahim Mohamed in Minivan News, a Divehi language Christian web site www.sidahitun.com is the main target of this censorship.

From Maldive Royal Family