Thursday, April 30, 2009
Pigs are considered unclean animals in the Muslim and Jewish religions and eating pork is proscribed.
"Even Muslims who live in Italy are talking about swine flu at the moment," Rachid said.
Most Muslims are not worried by the disease, as they don't eat pork and don't work with pig livestock, he said.
"But many believe the disease confirmed the teaching of the Koran."
The Koran orders Muslims to avoid close contact with pigs, as well as not to eat pork, Rachid noted.
"The Islamic faith doesn't explain exactly why pigs should be considered unclean animals," he said.
"But it's clear that for most theologians, it is precisely to avoid the spread of disease that Islamic tradition tends to keep men away from pigs," he added.
Scientific truths lie behind the teachings of the Koran that has taken many centuries for man to discover, Rachid claimed.
The number of probable deaths from swine flu in Mexico - the epicentre of the virus - has risen to 152.
A total of 26 cases have been confirmed there and at 79 cases have been confirmed worldwide across several continents.
Although the World Health Organization has not yet declared a pandemic of swine flu - warning it is a virus with "pandemic potential."
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Proof that he died during an explosive moment
Ibn Hisham page 682:
….that he heard Aisha say: “The apostle died on my bosom during my turn: [of having sex with]. It was due to my ignorance and extreme youth that the apostle died in my arms
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 144:
...during his fatal ailment, Allah's Apostle, used to ask his wives, "Where shall I stay tomorrow? Where shall I stay tomorrow?" He was looking forward to Aisha's turn. So all his wives allowed him to stay where he wished, and he stayed at 'Aisha's house till he died there. He died on the day of my usual turn (of having sex) at my house. Allah took him unto him while his head was between my chest and my neck and his saliva was mixed with my SALIVA.
Aisha is blaming her youth and ignorance for causing Prophet’s death. Aisha’s eager cooperation excited Prophet immensely which lead to a wild session of foreplay and tongue action followed by intensive sex. Due to her inexperience she could not see the danger of an old man performing sex with a young woman during his serious illness. Timely slowing down or stopping him could have saved his life. Prophet had an explosive climax which his old and sick heart could not handle and went in a cardiac arrest. She saw him die and slump on her bosom during his moment of extreme pleasure. (which is not uncommon in such cases). That is why she felt guilty of causing his death...
He did not recite Kalima at death
The hadiths indicate that instead of having kalima on his mouth like a good muslim during his last moments, prophet’s mouth was busy in tongue action and French kissing.
His body must have stiffened as he died during his pleasure moment in an “as is” condition. The fact that they tried to cover him with triple shroud indicates an embarrassing bulge which they must have tried to even out by extra layers of clothing. They wouldn’t have wanted all to know what their prophet was up to when he died.
Dawood, Book 20, Number 3147:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was shrouded in three garments made in Najran: two garments and one shirt in which he died.
Apparently the three clothing layers, nor the reported delay in burial, helped the situation and he was buried quietly where he was making love.
by Ayesha Ahmed
25 Apr, 2008
Note: This article may be a satire
Dhaka (AsiaNews) -The Islamic extremists of the group Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) are threatening attacks against UNICEF, the World Food Program, and the Red Crescent, telling the three organizations to leave the district of Barisal in southern Bangladesh.
Three letters signed by the Islamic organization, which is prohibited by the government of Dhaka, were sent to the local headquarters of the international humanitarian agencies. The militants of the JMB are announcing reprisals if the recipients of their threats do not leave the area.
Mohammed Mahabur Rahman, a police official in Barisal, confirms the report for AsiaNews and says that the threats are to be taken seriously. Security has already been stepped up for the three humanitarian organizations, but Rahman explains that "the police by itself is not capable of combating Islamic terrorism," and says that for this reason he is convinced that "the police and the population must work together against Muslim fundamentalism."
For Rashid Khan Menon, a member of parliament from the Workers' Party, the threats against the three organizations "are connected to the UN's recent promise to help Bangladesh in proceedings against war crimes perpetrated in the country."
Imtiaz Ahmed, a professor of international relations at the University of Dhaka, sees the intimidating letters as the sign of "a special agenda" on the part of fundamentalists against the presence of international organizations.
Recent security operations by the Rapid Action Battalion have led to the arrest of a number of militants of the JMB, and about a hundred people suspected of connections to the fundamentalist group. For professor Ahmed, the threats against the UN agencies have a twofold purpose: on the one hand, they send a signal to the authorities who want to take Islamic extremists to court for war crimes, on the other hand they seek to internationalize domestic affairs.
During the arrests of the mujahideen of the JMB, weapons, materials for making bombs, and computers were found, in addition to propaganda documents supporting jihad. In one flyer, the fundamentalists charge that "the media controlled by the Christians are making a false representation of the noble campaign of the mujahideen to liberate the country from the infidels"; they promise "to destroy all of the enemies of Allah," and "corrupt political leaders," and to "establish an Islamic state."
Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise in Bangladesh for years, and has included coordinated violent actions in multiple places in the country. Islamic extremist groups also have significant political influence.
From Asia News
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The attack was the deadliest single incident in Iraq since 63 people died in a truck bomb blast in Baghdad on June 17 last year, and came amid growing concerns that a recent drop in violence might turn out to have been just a temporary lull.
At least 125 people were wounded in the apparently coordinated blasts at the Imam Moussa al-Kadhim shrine in the Shi'ite neighbourhood of Kadhimiya, police said. Many of the dead and wounded were Iranian Shi'ite pilgrims.
Police said the attackers approached two different gates to the shrine, which has been a frequent target in the past.
One of the bombers detonated the explosives just inside a courtyard of the shrine, which contains the tombs of two important holy men, or imams.
The blasts on the Muslim holy day followed two suicide bombs on Thursday, one in Baghdad and the other in the northeastern province of Diyala, in which at least 89 people died.
continue reading here at TVNZ
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Since, thanks to Islamic terrorism the interest to know Islam has picked and Islam has come under scrutiny, the westerners began asking where are the moderate Muslims. Well, of course there is none. The concept is absurd. Muslims view this issue differently. You are either a ‘good’ practicing Muslim or a bad wishy-washy Muslim. It’s the latter group that the westerners have misnamed moderate Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned they are ‘hypocrites.’
- Islam is really a bad religion. The problem with Islam is with its sacred book and not just with its followers. Taking advantage of this confusion, a breed of Muslims has come up with the idea of “reforming Islam.” A few of these “reformers” have also gained some recognition among the unwary westerners, even though they are ignored and derided by the fellow Muslims a large.
In this article I would like to discuss whether Islam can be reformed.
Let us consider the etymology and meaning of re-form. Reform derives from Latin refōrmāre, which means to redeem, to reclaim, to renew. All these imply restoring something to its original shape.
Before talking about reform in Islam let us first take a look at reform in Christianity.
The Christian Reformation
The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, not the Christianity, but the Catholic Church. Many believers were troubled by the Church and its practices, such as the sale of indulgences (tickets to paradise) and simony (buying and selling church positions). They considered these as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church.
Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and other reformers protested these and other practices and beliefs of the Church such as Purgatory, devotion to Mary (Marina veneration), the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, the mandatory celibacy for the clergy (including monasticism), and the authority of the Pope.
None of these are doctrines of Christianity. These were practices of the Church. The reformers protested against the Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally. They rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures and took the texts of the Old and New Testaments as something like statute law. The words meant what they said; any difficulty, contradiction, or obscure meaning was the fault of the reader and not the text
Anything not contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be rejected, and anything that is contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be followed unwaveringly.
This is the essence of Protestant Reformation.
An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. This reformation was Salafism.
Many westerners, erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, (1703–1792) is the founder of an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was merely a reformer of Islam in the same way that Luther was of Christianity.
The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah) and that an Islamic revival will result through the emulation of the three early generations and the purging of foreign influences from the religion.
The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran.5:3
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا
Abdul Wahhab, proposed that Muslims should refrain from any innovation and follow the salaf, (“predecessors” or “early generations) hence the name Salafis.
Salafi: سلفي, takes the pious ancestors of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.
This belief is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad’s saying:
The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151.] (Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,)
In order to demolish the western myth that Abdul Wahhab was the founder of Salafism, it is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi “saints” saying: `Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents.
Early usage of the term Salaf appears in the book Al-Ansab by Abu Sa’d Abd al-Kareem al-Sama’ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar). Defining the term al-Salafi he stated, “This is an ascription to the salaf, or the predecessors, and the adaptation of their school of thought based upon what I have heard.” He then mentions examples of more people who were utilizing this ascription.
The Salafis derive their authority from a hadith of Muhammad, who noted:
“I am the best Salaf for you.” [Sahih Muslim: no. 2450]
The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state did not start with Abdul Wahhab. It is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.
The Similarities between Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation
There are many similarities between Protestantism and Salafism. The former rejects devotion to Mary and saints and their intercession. The latter rejects devotion to Muhammad, his intercession and the interception of Islamic holy men (such as practiced in Shiism). Both these reform movements want to take their respective faiths to their original purity and eschew the innovations that have been added to the religion after the death of their founders.
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the woman who was invited by Barak Hussein Obowma to represent Muslims in the interfaith prayer of the Democrats Presidential convention, and who is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), when asked whether Wahhabism is an extreme right wing sect of Islam, responded:
No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/intellectuals.htm
The Outcome of Reform in Christianity
Although Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation are almost identical in their scope and methodologies, the outcome has been very different. The literal reading of the Bible became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of Protestant societies and the foundation of social organization of the English colonies in America.
These reformers literally transformed the philosophical, political, religious, and social landscape of Europe. We still live in a society dominated by protestant theory of social organization.
American political discourse is essentially Calvinistic. In other words its social organization is based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures.
According to Calvin and Zwingli, not only should all religious belief be founded on the literal reading of Scriptures, but Church organization, political organization, and society itself should be founded on this literal reading.
Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo, (which resulted his excommunication from the Church) in which he explained the substance of his ideas. The letter is entitled “On the Freedom of the Christian.“ This letter explains the core of Luther’s thinking. According to Luther, the essence of Christianity is “freedom,” or “liberty.”
It is this concept that eventually gave rise to the notion of “individual freedom,” “political freedom,” and “economic freedom.”
Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around freedom and the project of “liberating” people: liberating them from false beliefs, false religion, arbitrary authority, etc.–that is, what is called “liberation discourse.” Westerners still participate in this Enlightenment project today.
That is why America invaded Iraq to liberate, first the Kuwait and a decade later, the Iraqis. That is why America has fought in nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany and Italy, from Panama to Nicaragua, from Vietnam to Somalia. Whether you agree with these wars or you don’t the objective has been always the same, to liberate people, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of “liberating” people, of democracy, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther’s idea of “freedom.”
The Outcome of Reform in Islam
What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is not free but a slave of Allah. People are Ibad (slaves).
This is diametrically different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism and here is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.
On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a God, both rely on an intermediary between man and God, both faiths are eschatological and have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadans claim, but it is an anti Christian belief in its essence. These faiths are different. One advocates freedom of man and the other his slavery. One brings the message of liberation the other, of submission.
The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary what Islam stands for. When you see Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true essence of Islam, which is anti freedom, anti democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.
True Muslims should not be free to choose, but they should emulate Muhammad. The Quran 33:36 says:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا
“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.”
It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it.
كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know. (Q. 2:216)
Islam can be distilled in its name: Submission. Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept His command, given to humanity by his last emissary Muhammad.
Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. You cannot have that in Islam. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.
This is the reason why Muslims cannot oppose stoning adulterers or killing the apostates.
Both Christianity and Islam underwent through reformation. They tooth similar paths and methodologies, but they ended up in two opposite poles. While Christian reformation brought freedom, enlightenment and democracy, Islamic reformation resulted in ignorance, slavery of man and jihad.
Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab were reformers of Islam. Among the contemporary Islamic reformers we can name Maududi (1903 – 1979) who wrote an interpretation of the Quran and Sayyid Qutb, (1906-1966) the leading intellectual of Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and ’60s, who was the inspiration for all Islamic terrorists including Ayatollah Khomeini and Bin Laden.
Reformation vs. Transformation
What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes do not want to go to the origin of Islam, but rather they want to eschew part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent an entirely different religion, still calling it Islam.
This is delusional thinking, and impractical both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.
These neoreformer wannabes want to change Islam to something different. In other words he wants to bring bid’a to Islam. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36, prohibits the believers to have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have made their wishes known. How can they decide what is good for the religion?
When the Quran says Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it, the message is clear. This is God speaking. That is what you have accepted a priori. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited.
أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ فَمَا جَزَاء مَن يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ مِنكُمْ إِلاَّ خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do. (Q.2:85)
أَفَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلاً
6:114 “Am I, then, to look unto anyone but God for judgment [as to what is right and wrong], when it is He who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ, clearly spelling out the truth?”
وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلاً لاَّ مُبَدِّلِ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ
6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but guess.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً أُولَـئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلاَّ النَّارَ وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
2:174 Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain - they but fill their bellies with fire. And God will not speak unto them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them [of their sins]; and grievous suffering awaits them.
See also 16:89 39:23,
كَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَى المُقْتَسِمِينَ الَّذِينَ جَعَلُوا الْقُرْآنَ عِضِين فَوَرَبِّكَ لَنَسْأَلَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِيْنَ:
(Q.15:90-92) Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Quran into parts. Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account,
وَلاَ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ
(6:34) there is none that can alter the words of Allah.
لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
(Q.10:64) There is no changing the Words of Allah that is the Supreme Triumph.
وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا
18:27 And recite that which hath been revealed unto you of the scripture of your Lord. There is none who can change His words, and you will find no refuge beside Him.
How can one claim to believe in the Quran and disregard all these warnings?
The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or malicious, they are hoodwinking people and as the result giving legitimacy to a very evil and dangerous creed.
Only truth can set us free. By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature. You can purify any water. You can even convert your urine into drinking water. But can you purify gasoline enough to make it drinkable? The essence of Islam is evil. You cannot reform it enough to make it a humane faith. Can you reform Nazism? This whole notion is misguided and absurd.
Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jiahd is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.
I prefer jihadi Muslims to these “Muslims against Sharia,” fellows. With the jihadis I know my enemy. I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.
If you are a Muslims, be a Muslim. I do not agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe. But if you are now a Muslim and now against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. “You are neither hot nor cold. I will spit you out.”
Some of these so called reformers hide their identity and face claiming to fear Muslims. Why should they? They are not saying anything that CAIR does not say when they want to Con the Americans with Islamic Ruse. This is all sham.
Reforming Islam is impossible but to transform it you need divine authority. Only God can change his words. Where is that divine authority? The only honest reformer of Islam was Baha’u’llah. He realized Islam cannot be reformed. So he declared to be a new manifestation of God and announced that through him God has sent a new revelation and has annulled all his previous mandates in the Quran.
So he told Muslims, whereas before you were told to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, now God wants you to love all mankind irrespective of their faith. Whereas before He told you women are deficient in intelligence, beat them if you fear they may disobey you, now he changed his mind and says men and women are equal in all respects and no one is permitted to mistreat women. Whereas in the previous dispensation God told you all non-believers will go to hell and will burn eternally, now he says it’s your deeds that matter and your faiths without good deeds is worthless and that He is not going to discriminate against anyone because of his belief. Now he has decided to look at the purity of your hearts and not in what you profess with your tongues. Whereas before he had invested zillions of celestial currency building a huge rotisserie to burn humans, he has actually closed it down and has decided to forgive everyone, including the sinners but he wants you to obey him and love your fellow being for the love of Him alone and not because you fear him. Just act as mature people. Whereas before He told fighting is good for you, now He has had an epiphany and says fighting behoove the savage beasts and not humans.
That requires courage. Now this was in 19th century in the middle of Shiite Persia. Of course he was put in jail and spent the rest of his life in exile. Many of his followers were executed. However, there is some logic in that argument. The logic is that only God has the authority to abrogate his own laws. That logic remains valid, until of course you ask what was God smoking when he sent Muhammad and why such a shift?
Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and let us know who our enemy is.
Islam cannot be reformed. They tried in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired, the Sufis tried, hundreds of old and new schools tried and they all failed. Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Please drop it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Face the truth. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Muhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Denmark is once AGAIN considering banning cousin marriages due to the prevalence of serious and rare birth defects found in the children born to these muslim couples.
"Cousin marriages is most common in families with Pakistani and Turkish roots. A Norwegian study from 2007 shows that a third of Pakistanis and a tenth of Turks are married with a cousin......According to Sygeplejersken (Nurse) journal, the risk for cousin couples to have children with a handicap or genetic disease is double the average."
There are even instances, cited, of muslim parents importing brides to marry off and consequently provide a permanent caretaker for their developmentally disabled sons. "many problems with retarded boys are solved with import brides, who are brought to the Netherlands to serve a sort of life imprisonment as a carer/spouse. LINK to above quotes (One wonders how many of these disabled sons were themselves the products of inbreeding)
Thus one glaring fact has emerged from the "culture" of Islam - an egregiously and sickening high rate of birth defects caused by muslim inbreeding. Muslims from Pakistan being the biggest offenders.
The same evidence of high levels of birth defects in muslim cousing marriages is apparent in Great Britain. So whilst in Britian the NHS is trying to prevent smokers, the obese and the elderly from receiving medical treatment - citing their lifestyles or age as justification to deny surgery, organ transplant, etc -- even though the vast majority of these people are long time British taxpayers -- there continues to be virtual silence on the choice of Pakistani muslims (often at least one partner is a recent immigrant) to marry their first cousins. The union of which is guaranteed to produce a high risk of major congenital birth defects amongst their progeny. A BBC report found :
Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. Thus Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third of all British children with genetic illnesses."---- LINK
According to a past article in the Sunday Times: "the minister, who represents Oldham East and Saddleworth said: "If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it's caused by first cousin marriage. "That's a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. It is not illegal in this country. "The problem is that many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages."
Ann Cryer MP, whose constituency has a large Pakistani population, has observed and stated that much of the Pakistani community is in denial about the problem. LINK It is clear that the majority of politicians, civic leaders and many health professionals are also wearing politically-correct blinders when it comes to confronting muslim intermarriage.
There is absolutely NO doubt that politicians and social leaders need to arise from worshipping at the altar of multiculturalism, dust off their knees, and make marriage between first cousins illegal and a reason to deny immigration into the UK. (and EU, USA, etc) This would not only help to relieve the enormous financial strain such marriages have brought to the British healthcare system but also would help to prevent another helpless child, who had no say in their origins, from undue suffering from multiple and often painful deformities and birth defects.
From the Opinionater
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
‘Islamization’ of Dhivehi Raajje did not occur as a result of mass conversions. The process took several centuries.
The truth is...
"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.” -Historian Will Durant (1885 –1981)
For three days in November 2008, all eyes were transfixed on the Jihadist bloodbath in Mumbai. These scenes of the burning Taj Mahal Hotel were on live feed to cable and satellite networks around the world. Many Westerners had heard of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, and may have been aware of the tensions centering on the disputed territory of Kashmir, but the sheer brutality and brazenness of the Mumbai Massacre brought the Jihad in India to global consciousness as never before. Unfortunately for India, the Mumbai attacks were only unique in terms of the high-profile media coverage accorded to them. The casualty figures, while appalling, were rather standard in the context of the series of Islamic terror attacks in India in the 21st century. And they are dwarfed by the massacres of tens and hundreds of thousands, sometimes in a single day, that pepper the 1300 year history of Islamic conquest on the Indian subcontinent.
Before the Islamic juggernaut burst in from the west, the native religions of these lands were Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. The Jihad against India was extraordinarily brutal even by Islamic standards. This is because unlike the so-called people of the book, Christians and Jews, who enjoyed some basic rights as subjected Dhimmis… Hindus and Buddhists were considered idolaters; the lowest of the low, worthy only of death.
Only 25 years after Muhammad’s death Islamic forces had crushed the Sassanid Persian Empire, and thus brought the spearhead of Islam to the borderlands of India. The first permanent Muslim foothold on the subcontinent was achieved with Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh in 711 A.D. He demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed all able-bodied men and carried their women and children into slavery. For example, it took his army three days to slaughter all the inhabitants of the port city of Debal. But the Arab Muslim conquest would stall here in the northwestern frontier.
By the end of the tenth century however, newly Islamized Turkic tribes began to expand the Ummah into what is now Northwest India proper. Mahmud of Ghazni (971-1030), who was also known as the "Sword of Islam," mounted seventeen plundering expeditions between 997 and 1027 into North India.
Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before. At Mathura he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naptha and burnt to the ground. Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, the richest king that history has ever known.
- Historian Will Durant, from "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage” 1935. pp. 459-463
A subsequent conqueror, Muhammad Khilji had the distinction of single-handedly wiping out Buddhist culture on the subcontinent by the end of the 12th century. He conquered their stronghold in Bihar and burned their famous library to the ground, slaughtering thousands of Buddhist monks and destroying dozens of ancient temples in the process. Muslims have done their best to erase any trace of this culture, even as recently as March 2001 when the Taliban destroyed four giant statues of Buddha in Bamiyan, Afghanistan.
Khiliji’s brutality also incited the first case of Jauhar in India. Jauhar is a desperate act of mass self-immolation. When Khiliji besieged the city of Chittor the Hindu inhabitants realized their cause was hopeless. As the men rode off to certain death in battle, the women and children burned themselves alive rather than suffer the dishonor of being killed or enslaved by the conquerors.
Another Turkic Muslim warlord, Timur, known as Tamerlane in the West, crossed the Indus River in 1398 and eventually captured the capital of Delhi. Timur explains the motivation for his conquest in his personal memoirs:
About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a ghazi, and if he is slain he becomes a martyr. It was on this account that I formed this resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Kuran, and the verse I opened upon was this, “O Prophet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers and treat them with severity” [Quran 66:9]. My great officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers. In obedience to the order of Almighty Allah I determined on an expedition against them.
- From the Malfuzat-i Timuri, an autobiographical memoir of the Emperor Timur (1336-1405)
Later he describes the sack of Delhi in his own words:
In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.
One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain...on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.
- From the Malfuzat-i Timuri, an autobiographical memoir of the Emperor Timur (1336-1405)
By the early 1500’s the mantle of Islamic power in India had passed to the first Mughal Emperor, Babar. Over the next centuries the Mughal Empire would expand to occupy nearly the entire Indian subcontinent. During the Mughal period outright slaughters and enslavements were less common, but the regime provided many incentives to convert to Islam by means of degrading Dhimmi laws and burdensome Jizya taxes.
So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims. With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all other Mughal Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus...and thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughal Emperors with as much zeal as was displayed by their predecessors,. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzeb, who deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since.
-R.C. Majumdar (editor) The Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974
Based on Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations Indian historian K.S. Lal has estimated that the Hindu population of India decreased by 80 million during the millennium of Islamic rule.
Yet despite a deliberate policy of genocide and conversion over the 1,000 years of partial or complete Muslim rule, the majority of the population miraculously retained their Hindu religion as modernity dawned on the subcontinent. In the next episode we will explore the continuing Islamic efforts to reconquer India in the modern era.
"These massacres perpetrated by Moslems in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao’s devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India."
– Serge Trifkovic
Monday, April 20, 2009
Like those who wear veils outside for religious reasons, Dr Munns says these people should have their vitamin D levels checked annually and consider taking a daily vitamin supplement.
"Although simple vitamin D deficiency is often asymptomatic, adults may present with bone pain, myalgia, myopathy, increased risk of falls, osteoporosis and hip fractures," Dr Munns writes in the latest edition of the Medical Journal of Australia.
"Children may present with hypoglycaemic seizures, bowed limbs, fractures and motor delay."
Dr Munns says mothers who are vitamin D deficient can pass this on to their children.
These women should have their vitamin D levels checked in the early phase of pregnancy, he says, while breastfed infants should be given vitamin D supplements until they are 12 months old.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Daughter killed over mini-skirt
AN Azeri immigrant in Russia's northern city of Saint Petersburg has been charged with hiring hit men to kill his 21-year-old daughter for wearing a mini-skirt, police said today.
The man's arrest follows the detention last week of two other citizens of Azerbaijan, a majority Muslim state in the Caucasus, who confessed to murdering the girl, a university medical student.
“They admitted to being paid 100,000 rubles ($4140) by the girl's father. They said he wanted to punish his daughter for flouting national traditions and wearing a mini-skirt,” a police source told said today.
The girl was abducted on the street in Russia's second city on March 8, taken to the outskirts of Saint Petersburg and then shot twice in the head, the source said.
From: The Australian18-year-old falls victim to ‘honour’ killing
LAHORE: A newly married woman was murdered by her brother-in-law in the name of ‘honour’ in Kahna Police precincts on Thursday. The 18-year-old victim was identified as Shamim Bibi. Her in-laws alleged that she had developed an illicit relationship with another man from the neighbourhood. They said she eloped with the man on Tuesday, after which elders of both families interfered and handed her over to her legal husband, Nawaz Ali, on Wednesday. Her brother-in-law, Azam, shot her to death. The victim’s father, Rasheed Ahmed, said he was not informed of the incident at night, adding that her life could have been saved if she was rushed to the hospital. A first information report (FIR) was registered against Azam on the charges of murder. Kahna Police Duty Officer Abdul Qayyum said no arrests had been made so far but the police was conducting raids to arrest the accused. staff report
From: The Daily Times
Pregnant Woman Stabbed to Death by Brother for 'Honor'...
Executed Lovers had Been Turned Over by Families...
Christian Woman Divorced and Beaten for Leaving Islam...
Husband Chops off Wife's Nose over Alleged Infidelity...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
In another fatwa entitled "Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife", it stated, "There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of this little girl who cannot afford to bear intercourse and it might harm her, as long as such ejaculation is without sexual penetration. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the starting point in all of this and what really matters the most is that the man is permitted to sexually enjoy his wife in any manner he wants as long as there is no harm.”
Shiite Muslims are not any different. Imam Khomeini (1902-1989), leader of Islamic revolution in Iran, said in his book "Tahrir Al Wasilah" (vol. 2 p. 221) the following: "A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch, embrace or thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs), there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby".
Shiite scholar, Al-Ayrawani, says that to receive sexual pleasure from the suckling baby is unanimously agreed upon by Muslim jurisprudents, be they Sunnis or Shiites.
Enquiring person: “Mr Imam Khomeini has mentioned in his book Tahrir Al-Wasilah a matter: ‘A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch or embrace, there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby’. We hope that the Sheikh would expound on the last paragraph. Please go ahead our mullah”.
Sheikh Ayrawani: In fact, this issue is one of the things that our Shiite jurisprudents, have all unanimously agreed upon. They (Sunnis) also have it in their books, it’s not belonging to us (Shiites) only. Now, suppose a man wants to get married to a little girl, to marry her permanently. What do you think? Let us now leave aside temporal marriage. I am here talking about the permanent kind of marriage. It is permitted for a man to marry off his daughter of 5 years of age to a man. Question: is that permitted or not permitted?. All Muslim jurisprudents agree and see no problem with that whatsoever. The father has every right to marry her off to a man. He is her custodian. Within the bounds of interest that is perfectly normal. The father is entitled to marry her off without any prohibition. Let us suppose that she is just two years of age. Or let us even say she is just one year old. There is not the least problem in that. By marrying her, she becomes lawful ‘halal’ for the husband (to do whatever he wants to her). Now, you tell me, can the husband kiss her or no?. Well, there is not the least problem in that since this little one is his own wife and therefore no problem at all.”
Maldivian "Islamic Scholars" have protested the minimum age of marriage law in Maldives. Because a minimum age of marriage for girls is Un-Islamic and against the commands of Allah
Visit source to read more and view video here
Some 300 Afghan women have been pelted by stones as they gathered to protest a new law that critics say legalises marital rape. Police struggled to keep counter-protesters away.
The law says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. It passed last month.Women's rights activists scheduled a protest today attended by about 300 mostly young women.
But the group was swamped by counter-protesters who shouted down the women's chants.
Some of the protesting men picked up gravel and stones and threw them at the women.
The men shouted 'Death to the slaves of the Christians!'
Female police held hands around the group to create a protective barrier.
Source: The Mail
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
There is a reason for this fatwa, the Prophet Muhammad Married a six-year-old named Aisha and had Sex with the girl by the time she was nine. Following in the footsteps of their Prophet, the pedophile, a Saudi Court has refused to annul the marriage of an 8-Year-Old to a 47 year-old man:
By Mohammed Jamjoom
A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man, a relative of the girl told CNN.
The most recent ruling, in which the judge upheld his original verdict, was handed down Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza, where late last year the same judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, who was seeking a divorce for her daughter.
The relative said the judge, Sheikh Habib Al-Habib, "stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty." The family member, who requested anonymity, added that the mother will continue to pursue a divorce for her daughter.
The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. The judge ruled the girl's mother -- who is separated from the girl's father -- was not the girl's legal guardian and therefore could not represent her in court, according to Abdullah al-Jutaili, the mother's lawyer.
The girl's father, according to the attorney, arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his. At the time of the initial verdict, the judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty, al-Jutaili told CNN. The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.
Last month, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib's verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.
Under the complicated Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing. The appeals court in Riyadh will now take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.
The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom recently. While rights groups have been petitioning the government to enact laws that would protect children from this type of marriage, the kingdom's top cleric has said that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.
"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks last January quoted in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."
Al-Sheikh reportedly made the remarks when he was asked during a lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.
"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Sharia law has not brought injustice to women."
Continue reading at YID with LID
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The term ‘Human Rights’ is used by many, also by Muslims. But it doesn’t necessarily imply that the users of the term mean the same thing. This is important to note as we discuss freedom of speech and religion. There are two major global entities with their respective declarations on human rights: The United Nations (UN) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
United Nations was founded after the 2nd World War. The UN declaration on human rights is based on Judeo-Christian ethics and was established in 1948. OIC was founded in 1969, has 57 member states and represents every fifth person on the globe. OIC has developed and adopted its own declaration on human rights, partly in opposition the UN version, stating that Islamic human rights are different. These Muslim countries have signed up to the UN declaration but pay little attention to it in practice, and adhere rather to the Islamic version, called the Cairo Declaration.
The Cairo Declaration states that all 57 Muslim countries should abide by the declaration. But it further clarifies that the declaration applies to the “ummah”, i.e. all Muslims all over the world, even in non-Muslim countries. This is noteworthy and remarkable. It is the norm of international treaties and conventions that nations sign up and commit themselves to abide by them. But the Cairo Declaration indirectly nullifies national borders and laws by asserting that the sharia based interpretation of human rights applies to all Muslims regardless of citizenship and country of residence. That means that Islamic laws (and the Cairo Declaration) supersede national laws, in every case and in every place.
The declaration states again and again - in the preamble, in various articles and in the conclusion - that everything is subject to sharia and should be interpreted in light of the Koran and Islamic law. Thus it may mention freedom and rights, but they are restricted according to the Koran and Islamic law.
Article 10 in the Cairo Declaration deals with religious freedom and asserts that there mustn’t be any compulsion in religion – but of course subject to Sharia. But it is a well known fact that those who leave Islam are at risk and quite a few are punished, even by death. Article 18 in the UN Declaration deals with religious freedom and has three main components: The right to have, express and change your faith. But in countries where Islam has a major influence there are definite limitations regarding expressing your beliefs and changing your religion; the latter especially for Muslims. In general Christians are allowed to convert to Islam, but it is illegal and dangerous for a Muslim to leave Islam.
This is what the Cairo Declaration says about freedom of speech: “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shariah.” Thus freedom of speech is interpreted and limited by sharia.
Many surveys measuring various freedoms shows – again and again – that citizens in Muslim countries suffer oppression. They lack basic human rights and freedoms when it comes to politics, media, religion, gender equality, and so forth. One may speak of human rights, but Islamic versions of the same lead to the opposite, as a result of the supremacy of sharia law in Muslim faith and practice globally. This also includes freedom of speech and religion. Thus we need to be aware of similar or same terms that may be filled with different contents.Mats.Tunehag@varldenidag.se
Saturday, April 11, 2009
BRITAIN was just “10 days from disaster’’ when police swooped on terror suspects allegedly plotting to blow up shoppers and young partygoers.
Continue reading here at the Daily Star
Thursday, April 09, 2009
"At last they have had their dark days too. O Allah, kill them and leave them destitute vagabonds," said one of a series of comments that have appeared on various jihadist websites this week.
The Abruzzo earthquake has made headline news around the world, and Al-Qaeda sympathisers have followed via Arabic TV networks.
The jihadists appear to be engaged in contest to see who can post updates on the death toll from the earthquake fastest.
A series of strong aftershocks since the main quake have caused further damage, hampering rescue efforts and further terrorising the population in the town of L'Aquila and surrounding villages. One man died of a heart-attack following a quake on Tuesday.
Between 20-30 people were still missing on Wednesday.
"O Allah, keep the earthquakes and tragedies coming - cursed be Europe, Israel and the United States," wrote 'Ashiq al-Irhab', which in Arabic means 'desirous of terrorism'.
Another jihadist site, 'al-Shura', has been publishing tolls of the Abruzzo earthquake victims beneath each article, accompanied by a macabre prayer.
The prayer reads: "O Allah, may the death toll continue to rise. Destroy our enemies and help Muslims!"
A user of the 'al-Shura' website, Nureddin al-Zanki, writes: "We have a stronger weapon than guns - our prayers, which will further drive up the numbers of victims."
Similar messages from jihadists have been posted to the 'Ansar' and 'Mujahidin' websites, whose users have rejoiced in the past at other disasters to hit western nations. (adnkronos.com)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Last week a peak UN body approved a motion by Islamic nations, declaring that Muslims be protected from criticism of their religion. The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding resolution, which was put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Muslim nations.
The resolution asks nations to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.” The text also says, “Defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence”. The whole drift of the resolution is to free Islam of any criticism.
The folly of the document stands out in numerous places. Consider this line: “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” That is one of the biggest howlers in the whole document. Remove two words (“and wrongly”) from the sentence and you have a perfectly true statement.
Of course Islam is associated with terrorism and human rights abuses. That is because Islam encourages terrorism and human rights abuses. I have documented this elsewhere. Normal freedoms found in the West are not part of Islamic ideology and culture.
And the Koran, Muhammad (in word and deed), and the hadith all condone religious violence, or terrorism. Jihad is enjoined upon Muslims, and we have seen plenty of examples of Islamic terror in the past few decades. Yet the UN is quite happy to go along with this nonsense.
Consider just one area of concern: religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Such freedoms are largely non-existent in the Muslim world. Indeed, just try leaving the religion of Islam. Such a move is considered to be apostasy, and worthy of death.
A leading critic of Islam – and former Muslim – Ibn Warraq has written extensively on such themes. Consider a few paragraphs from testimony he gave to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2004:
“The very notion of apostasy has vanished from the West where one would talk of being a lapsed Catholic or non-practicing Christian rather than an apostate. There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any other religion. In Islamic countries, on the other hand, the issue is far from dead.
“The Arabic word for apostate is murtadd, the one who turns back from Islam, and apostasy is denoted by irtidad and ridda. Ridda seems to have been used for apostasy from Islam into unbelief (in Arabic, kufr), and irtidad from Islam to some other religion. A person born of Muslim parents who later rejects Islam is called a Murtadd Fitri - fitri meaning natural, it can also mean instinctive, native, inborn, innate. One who converts to Islam and subsequently leaves it is a Murtadd Milli, from milla meaning religious community. The Murtadd Fitri can be seen as someone unnatural, subverting the natural course of things whose apostasy is a willful and obstinate act of treason against God and the one and only true creed, and a betrayal and desertion of the community. The Murtadd Milli is a traitor to the Muslim community, and equally disruptive.
“Any verbal denial of any principle of Muslim belief is considered apostasy. If one declares, for example, that the universe has always existed from eternity or that God has a material substance, then one is an apostate. If one denies the unity of God or confesses to a belief in reincarnation, one is guilty of apostasy. Certain acts are also deemed acts of apostasy, for example treating a copy of the Koran disrespectfully, by burning it or even soiling it in some way. Some doctors of Islamic law claim that a Muslim becomes an apostate if he or she enters a church, worships an idol, or learns and practises magic. A Muslim becomes an apostate if he defames the Prophet’s character, morals or virtues, and denies Muhammad’s prophethood and that he was the seal of the prophets.
“It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars, and we shall return to the textual evidence for it.”
It is understandable that the Muslim world would want to become immune from any criticism and careful scrutiny. The Muslim world as a whole leads the world in terms of basic denials of human rights and freedom of all sorts. So one can understand their reluctance to allow for any critical analysis of it.
But for the UN to jump on the band wagon shows how out of touch that body is as well. It is often doing its best to help in the promotion of Islam, and the universal spread of sharia law. This is but one more example of a globalist Islam and a subservient UN. The two make for a great couple.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Still in Hyderabad, old Arabs flock to buy young Indian girls. The price is cheap for these old oil rich Arabs buying tens of young Indian girls for their sexual pleasures.
According to media sources, "Arab Shiekh marries poor Indian girl", "Arab marries, and then ditches teenage Hyderabadi girl", "Arab Sheikhs marry young Indian girls and flee", "Parents marry off daughter to Arab for money" - The headlines aren''t from decades old newspapers. But, before you start putting stress on your grey cells to find out in which era such inhuman acts happened, let's make clear that this is a ''harsh present day reality''.
Yes, in today's era also Arab Shiekhs marry poor Indian girls paying a paltry sum, live with them for a short while, and then, go back to their countries, abandoning the girls. And, in Hyderabad, also known as the City of Nawabs, the practice has become very common, with marriage becoming a trade and woman a commodity.
The auspicious ceremony now has a customer, a broker and a seller. The Arab Sheikhs come to India and fix up with a broker, who in turn finds a girl, fixes her price with her father, and finally after tying the knot lives with her for a few days and goes back to his country. The tragedy is that few parents have learnt the lesson.
In a recent case that came to light, an impoverished Muslim family married off their daughter to an Arab Sheikh for a meagre amount of Rs. 5000, offered through a broker.
"He gave Rs. 5000, but it was all taken by the broker. My mother didn''t get anything. I married him wilfully, even though he was 50 years old," said a girl. Her dreams are all shattered as she has been abandoned by him.
continue reading here
Friday, April 03, 2009
The attacks began Saturday after a prominent Egyptian media commentator denounced a Baha'i activist in a television appearance as an "apostate" and called for her to be killed.
The Baha'i religion was founded in the 1860s by a Persian nobleman, Baha'u'llah, whom the faithful regard as the most recent in a line of prophets that included Buddha, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad. Muslims reject the faith because they believe Muhammad was God's final prophet, and Baha'is have been persecuted in the Middle East.
In Egypt, where the majority of the country's nearly 80 million people are Sunni Muslim, the Baha'i faith is not recognized as an official religion. The head of Al-Azhar, Egypt's dominant religious authority, has also declared it a "sacrilegious dogma."
After five days of violence, calm returned Wednesday to the village of Shouraniya, located about 215 miles south of Cairo. No one was injured in the attacks.
The village's 15 Baha'i residents were forced to leave, and police have prevented them from returning, rights groups said.
Egypt's Interior Ministry confirmed the attacks and said police have made arrests. But it denied that police stopped the Baha'i residents from returning to their village.
"This is just an incident, and we are investigating," ministry spokesman Gen. Hamdi Abdel-Karim said. He declined to provide more details.
During the violence, the attackers shouted "No God but Allah" and "Baha'is are enemies of Allah" as they hurled stones through windows, a group of six Egyptian human rights organizations said in a joint statement. On Tuesday, assailants also threw fire bombs, damaging five homes, they said.From The Associated Press
Thursday, April 02, 2009
“He will lie in front of me drugged,” Bahrami explained. “I will feel my way to his eyes and then drop 20 drops of acid in each eye.”
Bahrami, who has undergone 17 extensive facial surgeries in the aftermath of the attack and will never regain the use of her eyes, will stand over an anaesthetized Emovahedi as prison officials hold the man down. A doctor will be on site, holding open Emovahedi’s eyes to ensure the acid’s efficacy.
From Metro International
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
“Theatrical performance, whether it is a cinema or a song, would generally make an impression that is against Sharia. People need only those (art forms) that are useful to them to change their way of life (in an Islamic manner),” he decreed.
Last year the Grand Mufti issued an edict, in which he slammed Turkish soap operas like ‘Nour’ and ‘The Last Years,’ the hottest shows on Arab TV, describing them as “so much evil” that “they destroy people's ethics and are against our values.”
The mufti’s pronouncements are however a sign that Saudi society is increasingly split between a ruling establishment made up of very conservative clerics who espoused strict adherence to Islamic precepts and a broader group of more liberal-oriented young Saudis who want greater openness, more freedom for women and a greater range of entertainment.
Like young people across the Middle East young Saudis routinely go online which gives them access to US action movies, but they cannot go to the movies, an issue that is still taboo.
Yet the recent screening of a Saudi comedy, ‘Menahi’, in two movie theatres twice a day for eight days—with women dutifully seated in the balcony, and men in the stalls—was cheered by many Saudis.
“We put sound and visual equipment, we sold tickets for the first time in Saudi Arabia, and we even sold popcorn,” said Ayman Halawani, general manager of Rotana Studios, the production arm of a company owned by Waleed bin Talal, a financier and member of the royal family, who has become the target of ultra-conservatives for his liberal ideas and investments in the TV and show business.
Overall some 25,000 people actually saw the film.
Such desire for openness is in contrast with what the ruling class wants for Saudi society. For the old guard any overture to customs and traditions that are not strictly Islamic is a threat that must be opposed.
In his address to students at King Saud University, the grand mufti warned against playing chess because it “causes a man to lose his wealth and waste his time.”
Conversely “photography is one of the necessities of life” because it helps in “lectures, [. . .] religious activities [. . .] while maintaining public security.”
“Only the photography of sculptures and models is prohibited,” he said.
Remuneration for poets who attend festivals and cultural events is permissible if their words are good, faultless, without “abusive words or references.”
Finally, the mufti urged students to stay away from cigarettes and avoid reckless driving, especially at night or early morning.