Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Jihad against joy

"The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance." - Hadith Qudsi 19:5

"There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." - Ayatollah Khomeini

Farhan Khan, a drummer in a band, is taking a break from performing. This move was prompted by his mother, who worries that her son might become a target for the Islamic extremists gradually asserting their power in this city.

In recent months, as theaters have been bombed, art festivals interrupted, and musicians targeted, Mr. Khan has learned firsthand about the rising level of hostility toward his profession.

"Once, I was walking down a street: I wear my hair long and was wearing tattered jeans," he says. "As I neared a corner, I came across a bearded man who gave me a dirty look and then scowled at me."

The stranger approached Khan and told him, "You should cut off your hair and grow your beard if you know what's good for you."

Those who've been living in Lahore – a city of 10 million – for many years find the idea of extremism arriving on these streets baffling. But its presence is growing, and musicians, artists, and performers are among those most affected.

Event manager Aamir Mazhar laments the rising threat to Punjab Province's cultural capital, a hub of the latest styles, films, and comedy performances.

"This was the best city in the world," says Mr. Mazhar, rushing around a venue to arrange a launch party. "There was an energy, an enthusiasm, and a life here, which no other city could rival."

continue reading here

Islam in action : Somalis watch double amputations on teens...

Hardline Islamists in Somalia have carried out double amputations on four men for stealing phones and guns.

They have each had a hand and foot cut off after being convicted by a Sharia court in the capital earlier this week.

More then 300 people, mainly women and children, watched as masked men cut off their limbs with machetes.

The four men reportedly admitted to the robberies, but were not represented by a lawyer and were not allowed to appeal against their sentence.

The al-Shabab group, which controls much of southern Somalia, has carried out amputations, floggings and an execution in the port of Kismayo but such punishments are rare in the capital.

The amputations were carried out in the open in front of an al-Shabab military camp in the north-east of Mogadishu.

A local resident said the four men cried out during and after the amputations. Each man had his right hand and left foot cut off.

"'Help, help, help!' one of them shouted," Mohamed Abdi told the BBC.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Germany 'Shocked' as 15-Year-Old Girl Stabbed to Death by Dad

A Muslim dad stabbed his own 15-year-old daughter to death in an honour killing which has shocked Germany.

Mehmet Ö. (45) sneaked into Bürsa’s bedroom at 3.30am and repeatedly struck the helpless teen with a knife.

Her grandparents called an ambulance but medics could not do anything for Buersa as she bled to death.

The kebab shop owner fled the crime scene in the town of Schweinfurt but was later arrested by a police patrol in the town centre after a judge issued a warrant.

Police spokeswoman Kathrin Reinhardt said: “He confessed in a hearing to the Criminal Investigation Department.”

As a motive behind the crime, she said: “Both had very dissimilar life outlooks which kept leading to differences between them.”

Bürsa wore a head scarf but she did not want her strict Muslim father to control her life.

Friends described how the western lifestyle of his daughter made Mehmet Ö angry.

Metush H., a friend of the family, said that Bürsa’s sister and mum also had to always wear a headscarf.

Yesterday at her school, the Olympia-Morata-Gymnasium, her classmates gathered in the library to pay tribute to her.

A tearful friend told BILD: “She was a fun-loving girl, loved hip hop music. But that is no reason to kill someone!”

Bürsa, at just 15, joins Gülsüm († 20), Hatun († 23) and Morsal († 16) on the long list of honour killing victims in Germany.

From Bild.com

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Holy Warriors of Allah blow up girls' school...

MILITANTS bombed a girls' primary school on the outskirts of Pakistan's Peshawar city today, the latest in a series of such attacks blighting the northwest of the country, police said.

The school was badly damaged during the attack in Mattni village, local police official Abdul Ghafoor Afridi said.

Explosives were used to raze the building, although some of the structures were left standing, he added.

"Three rooms and the outer wall of the government-run community model girls primary school was totally destroyed while the staff room was damaged,'' the police official said.

There were no casualties as schools are closed for the summer in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province that borders Afghanistan.

Pakistan has used schools to shelter some of the roughly two million people displaced by a blistering military operation against armed Taliban hardliners since late April.

Fighters in the northwest district of Swat, where the military assault has concentrated, have destroyed scores of schools, mostly for girls, during a two-year campaign to enforce sharia law.

Militants have destroyed at least 191 schools in the valley, including 122 girls' schools, leaving 62,000 pupils without classrooms, local officials said.

There has been no co-education in Swat for several years and schools have created totally separate sections for boys and girls.

Yesterday, militants blew up a girls' school in South Waziristan, a tribal region that falls outside direct government control and where a full-scale army offensive is expected against Pakistan's Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud.

On Monday, rebels bombed a school in Peshawar and another in the Bajaur tribal region, where past military operations have been concentrated.


62-Year-Old Man Buys 16-Year-Old Girl from Uncle...

No surprise here..the sunnah and example of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH) is that a 60 yr old man can "marry' a 6 yr old baby..and fathers can sell their children..

The ‘sale’ was brought to the court’s notice during the hearing of a petition by Kulsoom and her paternal uncle Aslam, seeking the quashing of a theft case. Haji Khalil Ahmad, the 62-year-old man, had lodged the theft case against Kulsoom and Aslam. The judge asked Khalil how he was married to a 16-year-old girl. Khalil disclosed that he had paid Rs 0.4 million to one of her maternal uncles, Waris.


Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Refusing to Convert to Islam..

A young Christian man was raped and brutally murdered in Pakistan for refusing to convert to Islam, and police are doing nothing about it, the victim's brother and minister told FOXNews.com.

Pakistani police reportedly found the body of Tariq "Litto" Mashi Ghauri — a 28-year-old university student in Sargodha, Pakistan — lying dead in a canal outside a rural village in Punjab Province on May 15. He had been raped and stabbed at least five times.

"They have sexually abuse him, torture him with a knife on his testicle and genitals," Ghauri's brother, 24-year-old Salman Nabil Ghauri, said. "They have tortured him very badly, and after that they have stabbed five times with a knife and killed him."

The family believes Litto Ghauri was murdered by the brothers of his Muslim girlfriend, Shazi Cheema, after they found him in a compromising sexual position with their sister.

The Rev. Haroon Bhatti, a Christian clergyman in the village and a friend of the Ghauri family, said Cheema's three brothers came to Litto Ghauri's house on May 11 and gave him an ultimatum: Marry their sister and convert to Islam.

Ghauri agreed to the marriage but refused to accept Islam, and the brothers kidnapped him at gunpoint and drove him to a remote farmhouse, where they tortured and murdered him, the minister said.

Continue reading here

Friday, June 26, 2009

Cruel and Usual Punishment - what Sharia Law means, and how women are treated in Islam

Nonie Darwish knows a fair amount about Islam. She was an Egyptian Muslim for the first 30 years of her life. Then she fled to America and she is now a Christian. She has told her story earlier, in her 2007 volume, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

In this book she continues her important story, but she does so by highlighting two crucial themes: what sharia law means, and how women are treated in Islam. In 270 pages she spells out in chilling detail what the implications are of Islamic law, and how the West must be very careful indeed about the spread of sharia.

The first half of this important book looks at how women are treated in the world of sharia. The treatment of women in Islam alone should serve as a warning for anyone who thinks sharia is compatible with Western democracy and freedom.

Consider marriage. Muslim women are prohibited under sharia from marrying non-Muslim men. But Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. And the sharia marriage contract “is essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his four wives”.

There are even temporary marriages purely for the purposes of sexual pleasure for the male, called mutaa, or pleasure marriage. This “marriage” can last as little as an hour. Then there is misyar, or traveller’s marriage, which is “designed to accommodate the male sexual appetite while travelling”.

Divorce is of course also all one way traffic in Islam. Men can divorce their wives instantly, simply by saying “I divorce you” three times. A Muslim woman cannot initiate a divorce. In custody cases, children after the age of seven (or sometimes nine) belong to the father.

And a male can beat his wife and sexually abandon her. Under sharia a husband deserves total submission and gratitude. As one revered Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali has said, “Marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave, and her duty therefore is absolute obedience”.

Polygamy is also the right of Muslim men. But even more abhorrent is the practice of sexual gratification with children. There is no legal age for marriage under sharia. Thus the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, said in an official statement, “A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby.”

Of course Muhammad himself had a six-year-old wife, whom he consummated relations with when she was just nine. And Islamic leaders argue that his life serves as an example and pattern for all Muslims. This is all codified in surah 65:4 in the Koran.

There are plenty of other misogynist elements to sharia law. Women adulterers are to be stoned to death; girls who fornicate are to be flogged; a woman’s testimony in a court of law is only worth half that of a man’s; women cannot be in the company of men who are not her relatives; female genital mutilation is rife; a Muslim wife needs her husband’s permission to travel; and so on.

Then there is the issue of honour killing. While there is no sharia law that expressly gives men the right to kill their women to protect their family honour, there are existing laws which protect men who do commit such killings. Indeed, sharia states that a killer of an apostate, a robber or an adulterer cannot be punished for murder.

In the rest of the book Darwish looks at life “behind the Muslim curtain” – what life is like for non-Muslims under sharia law. Non-Muslims are treated almost as poorly as women in Muslim-majority countries. Jews and Christians are under dhimmitude, or second-class citizenship. Darwish chronicles the many ways in which non-Muslims are oppressed, discriminated against, and denied basic human rights.

And ordinary Muslims who dare to think independently of sharia are also subject to tremendous opposition and oppression. Criticism of Islam is of course punishable by death. Muhammad himself ordered the killing of those who dared to criticise him.

All the various schools of Islam agree that blasphemy or criticism of Islam is a capital offence. And Muslim imams do not expect to be questioned or challenged in any way. In such a world there is “no intellectual honesty, no dialogue, and no respect”.

Muslim preachers regard Westerners and Jews as the embodiment of evil, the personification of Satan. Therefore they can be cursed, deceived and killed. Indeed, according to sharia, lying and deception are obligatory at times when dealing with the enemies of Islam. This is part of the overall jihad being waged against infidels.

After reading so much detail about what sharia teaches and commands, one is left overwhelmed. As Darwish says, “The West should be clear on the nature of Sharia. It is nothing more than legal tyranny, a terminal disease that destroys the healthy functioning of society where everything is sacrificed for the sake of total control”.

Indeed, say Darwish, Islam is not really a religion as much as it is a system of complete control and social order. It is an intolerant worldview which allows no opposition or questioning. Thus the West should resolutely oppose what she calls “Islamo-Fascism”. We should not tolerate intolerance.


Darwish has nicely laid out the implications of life under sharia. It is up to us how we respond.

With thanks to Culture Watch

The veil is a tool of oppression used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom

Can't say that we agree with everything she says (see Qur'an 24:31, for example), but this British Muslim has our respect for at least trying to coax her religion forward a few centuries.

Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department.

The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public.

Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.

In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.

Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.

Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.

And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.

The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom.

Continue reading here at Mail Online

Thursday, June 25, 2009

A brief history of the resurrection of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century.

How Hasan al-Banna's movement not only succeeded in inspiring rejection of Western liberalism in Islamic countries, but also revived Islam's age-old ambition for 'global dominance'...

The First World War had finally come to an end. The European victors could now turn their attention to the Middle Eastern vacuum. Muslims from Cairo to Jeddah to Jerusalem to Damascus were facing the harsh reality of the end of a seventh century dream. Their Ottoman Empire had slowly disintegrated from within and was now powerless to hold back the European advance. Islam’s core belief in its manifest destiny to dominate all of human civilization was at an end.

It was supremely naïve of the Europeans to think that the words of the Prophet Muhammad would die so easily. Weren’t they words that had come directly from God Himself? In their momentary hubris, they never imagined that these words would once again take hold and would then spread like a contagion and even begin to eat away at their own European society.

The year 1927 marked the first challenge to this Western naïveté. In Islam’s darkest hour there suddenly rose a voice. It was calling for Muslims to abandon the secular and decadent Western encroachment that was destroying them and return to the purity of Islam. It was the voice of a highly gifted and charismatic individual, an Egyptian orator schoolteacher/clock repairer named Hassan al-Banna. He appeared out of nowhere onto the streets corners of Cairo, as well as other Egyptian cities, dressed in a flaming red robe preaching his message. Like the early American Christian evangelists, he mesmerized his audiences with vivid descriptions of hell for those who had abandoned the purity of Islam. Like the American Christian evangelists he too warned of the Day of Judgment and Hell’s torments.

There was, however, a difference between Hassan al-Banna and these Christian Americans. Islam is a political/military religion. Muslims do not render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars’. Muhammad had joined religion, governance and military conquest and made it one. Al-Banna’s mission was first to take over the Egyptian government and then the world. In 1928 he established the Society of Muslim Brothers. By the late 1940’s the Muslim Brothers had some two thousand branches throughout Egypt and it was threatening the Egyptian government itself.

Its objectives were "'individual moral purification and collective political and social regeneration through the establishment of a truly Islamic government in Egypt, as a springboard for universal expansion'"; and as Banna described it, "'until the entire world will chant the name of the Prophet (Muhammad), Allah’s prayers and blessings be upon him.'" (Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism, A History, Yale University Press, 2006, p. 208-19)

But there was a chilling side to these objectives. As Efraim Karsh further describes it in his book:

"In Banna’s view, the Qur’an commanded its believers to love death as much as others love life. As long as Muslim society failed to abide by this sacred philosophy, they were destined to remain in their current dismal position." 'There is no escape from death and it happens only once', he (Banna) claimed. 'Should death come down the path of Allah, it will be a gain in this world and a reward in the other.'

This reasoning was duly incorporated into the Muslim Brother's Credo: "'Allah is our goal; the Qur’an is our constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Struggle is our way; and death in the path of Allah is our highest aspiration.'"

Continue reading here

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

From Mecca To Jerusalem: Muslims And Their Feelings

Here is a great article by JEW WITH A VIEW . It is our pleasure to reproduce it in full so that you may learn about the "tolerance and respect" of Muslims and Jews.

Next time someone tries to hoodwink you into believing that Islam ‘respects all
faiths’, ask them about Mecca and Medina. Specifically, ask them why the two holiest Muslim cities are off limits to all non Muslims.

Yep, that’s right. Mecca and Medina are no go areas unless you’re a Quran-brandishing member of the ‘religion of peace’. And there are no exceptions, no apologies and certainly no concern over whether this might be a tad hypocritical.

In fact, just to make it clear to any naughty infidels who may try and sneak into Mecca, the Saudi authorities have put up these helpful signs:


Now let’s compare what happens in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is the holiest Jewish city. And where the second temple once stood, there now remains a solitary wall; the Kotel, or ‘Wailing Wall’, where Jews come to pray. Non Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel and pray there, should they desire.

And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque - slapbang where the Jewish temple used to stand.

From what you read in the international media, you’d never know that Israel - being democratic to a fault - has given control of this vital area to the Muslims. Yep, that’s right. Even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor and carry out terrorism against the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area.

And what happens when any non Muslim dares to go there…?

Ask Israeli cabinet Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch. Today he paid a visit to the Temple Mount. Result? Total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Aharonovitch spent a mere ninety minutes in the area, and was there purely to check police deployments in this volatile area of Jerusalem.

“The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency,” Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said. And he added:We went everywhere. We were accompanied by the Waqf, who were fully aware of our presence, and this was planned in coordination with them well ahead of the visit.”

Nine years ago, of course, a similar visit by Ariel Sharon triggered a bloody and protracted ‘intifada’ by the Palestinians. I mean, just think about it: a Jewish Israeli has the sheer chutzpah to visit a holy Jewish area in Israel, the Jewish homeland! Whatever next?!

And these are far from being isolated events. Back in 2005, on Yom Jerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), a small Jewish group ascended the Temple Mount only to be attacked by a mob of Palestinian Muslims, who emerged from the Al Aqsa Mosque. The police had to be called, so intense was the violence directed at the Jews.

But Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews before Islam even existed, I hear the historians among you cry indignantly!

Yet here is the Palestinian-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, insisting that today’s visit by Israeli Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was not coordinated in advance and, wait for it:

He does not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish site, and it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is an assault on an Islamic place,” Hussein said.

And there, in that one line, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy of the demands made by Muslims in non Muslim nations. Let’s read it again, just to marvel at the sheer arrogance involved:

‘…it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims…’

Ah yes, Muslim feelings…

The same Muslim feelings that are ‘provoked’ by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks and democracy and Geert Wilders and books about Mohammed and freedom for women and alcohol and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Atheists and Gays and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam!

It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great Dhimmi in the White House, is busy bending over backwards to appease.

It is these Muslim feelings that got Dutch Politician Geert Wilders banned from Britain and also have him living in fear, under 24/7 police guard.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensure women throughout the Islamic world have about the same rights as a house plant; none, in other words.

It is these Muslim feelings that enable Muslim men in Saudi Arabia to rape women with impunity; women who are then publicly flogged and imprisoned as ‘punishment’.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensured the novel ‘The Jewel Of Medina’ was dropped by two publishers, after angry Muslims threatened the first one, and then firebombed the London home of the second who took it on.

It is Muslim feelings that result in Muslim terrorists stealing the lives of innocent civilians in Israel on a regular basis.

It is Muslim feelings that in 2005 brought horror to the heart of London and left corpses buried underground on burning tube trains.

It is Muslim feelings that brought down the Twin Towers in New York and that have caused another 13,459 deaths since.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Muslim sensibilities any more, given that in order to keep Muslims happy, the rest of us have to sacrifice every value we hold dear.

I recommend that next time the followers of Islam start burning flags, rioting, issuing fatwas, and banging on about their feelings, we tell them where to shove’em!

With many thanks to JEW WITH A VIEW

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"

doing the work that Allah has prescribed for his believers in Iran

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"Islamic justice" - teenagers' opposite hand and leg amputated

"Today, the Islamic court sentences these four men who carried out robberies to have their opposite hand and leg amputated," said Sheikh Abdul Haq, judge of the sharia court in the al Shabaab-held Suqa Holaha area of the Somali capital.

"They robbed mobile phones and people's belongings."

The judge did not say when the sentence would be carried out at the hearing, attended by hundreds of residents. Shackled and silent, the teenagers were led away into custody.

Read the full story here

Monday, June 22, 2009

Muslim women and choice.....My Slave Is Called A "Wife"

"Why can't I leave my house?"
"Because you are my wife, which means you are my slave for life!"
Slavery requires the total control of the movements of another person. When men control a person's movements and call her a wife or daughter, they may deceive the rest of the world, but the truth is, these women are slaves and men are their masters.

Throughout history, in civilizations where slavery has existed, one of the main cornerstones was that a slave could not leave the master's house or property without the master's permission. Today, in the Islamic world, the slave population includes one-half of their total population: women. The result is at least 200 million Muslim women cannot leave their homes without their husband's, fathers or nearest male relative's permission. Male members of the Islamic world say that a woman should only leave her home three times in her life: when she is born, when she is married, and when she is buried. Any other time a woman is allowed to leave the house, she must wear a veil, hijab, chador or burqa and be accompanied by a male relative, for women cannot be alone outside the house. In many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot travel out of her town or country without the written permission of her nearest male relative, and she must also be accompanied by a male relative when she is permitted to travel.

These practices allow total male dominance and control; these practices allow slavery. Yet we in America are silent. We accept the slave masters' justification of slavery, because it is hidden under the cover of culture and religion. We buy into this deception because it is politically incorrect for us to say anything negative about a culture or religion. All religions and cultures are equal, aren't they? I say they are not - not if they promote the enslavement of women.

What is enslavement, if not the boring, unfulfilling, degrading world these women must endure? They are generally not allowed to be educated, simply because they are women. If they do become educated, a husband can prohibit his wife from working. If she cannot work, she loses all freedom, for she becomes completely dependent on the man for food and shelter. Women are commonly murdered to preserve the "honor" of the husband or his family. Add to these horrors the practices of polygamy, wife beating, wearing of the burqa, genital mutilation and forced sex. A rape victim, not the rapist, is punished. A divorced woman automatically loses her children and the right to see them. The list goes on. No wonder so many Muslim women commit suicide.

In 1985, the president of Pakistan established a commission to investigate the status of women. The commission's report, quoted from the book, Price of Honor by Jan Goodwin, states "the average woman is born into near slavery, leads a life of drudgery, and dies invariably in oblivion. This grim condition is the stark reality of half our population simply because they happen to be female." Not surprisingly, the government suppressed the findings, and conditions have deteriorated since this report.

The moment an Islamic woman is forced to marry (as early as nine years old) and move into a man's family home, she becomes his slave. For her, life becomes a new series of injustices because she had the audacity to born a woman. It begins with the payment of a dowry. This alone shows that she is simply property - much as a TV set is in this country. In the first few months of marriage, her husband's family might decide that the dowry they received was not enough or to their liking. For the crime of an insufficient dowry, the young wife will likely be burned to death by the husband or a male family member, unless the young wife's family is able to increase the dowry. Since law or tradition permits this despicable act, the perpetrators are very seldom arrested or punished. This barbaric practice, called dowry burning, is a common practice in Pakistan and other areas.

As you read this, perhaps you are thinking that you know Muslim women who are not treated this way, and that is true. Approximately 300 million Muslim women are not treated in this manner. But this still leaves at least 200 million Muslim women who are treated as slaves - more women than live in America.

Why are these crimes against Muslim women so prevalent and savage? There is an old saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Over the last 200 years, and especially during the last few decades, the Islamic clerics, Wahhabism, organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizballah, and other male-dominated groups have used their power, religion, culture and the lack of education for women to control women and therefore control entire societies. The subjugation of women is about power and control. When you control and dominate the Islamic women who raise the children, you in essence control future generations.

In these modern times of the 21st century, how can there be slavery on such a massive scale? In the United States, if one person was considered a slave, the media would go nuts and the world would be in an uproar, so how can there be at least 200 million women slaves spread throughout an entire religion and culture while the rest of the world simply turns its back and walks away? The simple reason is that we allow and condone slavery as long as slavery is said to be "Islamic tradition." How many articles do you see written in newspapers, how many programs on television, about the slavery of Islamic women? How many demonstrations in the streets do you see again slavery? The answer is almost none. Perhaps the reason Islamic women are slaves (and treated worse than most slaves were treated historically) is that we don't care, or we choose to ignore it, or we consider it politically incorrect to challenge a religion or culture, or we are afraid to say anything because it is hidden under the guise of religion or culture. The Islamic world and Islamic clerics are running a very successful scam, and the rest of the world is buying this scam. It's time we do something about this injustice. The question is what can we do? Here are some ideas.

Write letters to your congressperson, senator, and the president. Write articles such as this for newspapers and magazines expressing your objection to slavery. Organize demonstrations against slavery. Call into radio talk shows and express your views about slavery. Send e-mails to all your friends expressing how you feel about this despicable practice. What is important is we need to stop doing nothing, and start taking action now against the enslavement of 200 million women.


Muslim Man Beheads Daughter to Prevent Her from Marrying...

...a man allegedly beheaded his daughter who was insisting on marrying her lover in Rampur district.

Shaukat Saifi was arrested after he allegedly beheaded his daughter Naseem with a sharp edged weapon yesterday in village Krimcha, about 250 km from here, police said.

While Naseem wanted to marry Yasin, a resident of the same village, her father was opposed to the alliance, they said.


Sunday, June 21, 2009

Holy Bombers of Allah (Sunni Team) Blow Up 64 Shia Women & Children at Mosque...

....a suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with explosives as Shiite Muslim worshipers left the mosque after noon prayers in the northern town of Taza, 14 miles south of Kirkuk. The dead included women and children, officials said, and more than 170 people were wounded.

The explosion caused the mosque and at least a dozen mud houses to collapse, security officials said, and many victims were feared trapped under the rubble.

Soon after the blast, police and medics rushed to the scene as bystanders ferried the dead and wounded to Kirkuk's main hospital. Iraqi police and security forces cordoned off the area, as U.S. soldiers collected evidence from what remained of the truck.

Relatives dug graves in the cemetery behind the mosque for their loved ones. By nightfall, Iraqi and American rescue teams had set up lights as they continued to search for people buried under the debris.

Continue reading here at The Washington Post

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Police Look to Arrest Actor Shahrukh over 'Hurt Muslim Feelings'

The Bandra police has filed a case against Shahrukh Khan yesterday (18th June) for hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslims. The Muslim community is not happy with the actor's remark on their Prophet Mohammed in the July issue of Time N Style magazine, in which he listed the Prophet as one of the most unimpressive personalities in history.
The police has filed an FIR against the actor following a complaint registered Shahrukh, the publisher of the magazine and the writer by the Mumbai Aman Committee, a religious organisation. The case was registered under section 295-a (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religion feelings or any class by insulting its religion beliefs) and 34 (acts done by several persons with common interest) of IPC.

The police revealed that they have registered a case against Shahrukh after receiving an application from an advocate, who alleged that the actor made some remarks against Prophet Mohammed, which has hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community. It added that he would not be arrested immediately but would take action after the probing is done. Shahrukh could be jailed for three years if convicted.

Shahrukh's comment has invited wrath from the Muslim community. Farid Sheikh, President of Mumbai Aman Committee, said that they would not allow Shahrukh's body to be buried anywhere in Maharashtra. Zarar Qureshi, secretary of the committee, also said that the actor has hurt the Muslim community by bracketed the Prophet Mohammed along with Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill.

From One India

Friday, June 19, 2009

Hamas: The Terror Elite

Maldivians have held demonstrations and and waved banners in honor of the Islamic group openly sworn to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of Jews worldwide.
This bloody terror organization is the subject of Steven Plaut’s devastating new pamphlet, “Hamas: The Terror Elite.”
......In a sweeping survey of Hamas’s bloody history, Plaut reveals that the terror group remains unwaveringly committed to its goal of carrying out a new genocide against Jews. Plaut also describes the little-mentioned reality that the self-described “legitimate” representative of the Palestinian people is also their most brutal tormentor. Terrorizing its own, Hamas tortures Gaza’s residents, forces them to live under oppressive Islamic law, and dispatches “vice squads” to deal with those who dare to defy its fanatical rule. It’s little wonder that Hamas has found its firmest allies in the mullahs of Iran and Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist shock troops. As Plaut’s pamphlet shows beyond any doubt, “Hamas and al-Qaeda are basically two sides of the same Jihad.”

To read “Hamas: The Terror Elite,” please click here.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Islam does not require a Muslim to think. In fact, it discourages it, given the consequences.

Just like any other Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, Islam is the only dominant religion in Pakistan. Bitterly condemned and despised, religions other than Islam have very little place in these countries. These Islamic states attempt to adopt their way of life according to the Quran and Sunnah. In Pakistan, Sunnis are in the majority, about 75% of the population: the Shias are the second largest Islamic sect.

My beliefs towards Allah, Islam and Muhammad as a Muslim

As stated above, I was, by birth a Muslim, and at an early age we were taught the basic principles of Islam. Allah was everything to me. I considered him as the almighty. He was omnipresent; I thought he was watching us all the time. He knows every action of us, even what we think and intend. We live happily or sadly, that’s all from his will. We were taught that he loves us very much and he is our only protector. He possesses such a mighty power that we could never even think.

Like every Muslim, I had a great reverence and adoration for Muhammad. To me, he was a hero, a superman, the only savior, infallible, protector, merciful, and the most remarkable personality on earth that can never be compared with anyone else. I could never dare to conjecture that Muhammad could ever commit sins or do mistakes. Had I ever questioned the honor and integrity of Muhammad, I started to blame my subconscience. I often thought that I was one of the luckiest men in the world that I was born a Muslim, and we Muslims would be the only inhabitants of Jannat, where there are hoors (heavenly virgins) and vine (wine) with exclusive flavors. Thus, around the age of 20, I started to offer prayers, not only five times a day, but also nawafil prayers (extra prayers that are not compulsory), just being greedy to have more hoors in jannat. I believed that the more we pray the prettier our hoors will be.

Sadly, due to this self-deception and ignorance, I neglected and overlooked the pretty virgins in this world.

Knowing that every non-Muslim, no matter how righteous or good, will go to hell, I often pondered about them, and the terrible fate that awaits them. Pitying them, I wished that all non-Muslims become Muslim and join us in jannat. Because I learned that the only method for the success in the hereafter was to believe in one Allah and in the affirmation of the finality of Muhammad, the (so-called) prophet. I firmly believed that Muhammad was the next great personality after Allah.

My reasons of Leaving Islam

Now, I will discuss about the false conception of Muslims about Islam, Allah, the Quran and Muhammad .I found the good reason to leave Islam when I discovered the gross irrationalities and logical errors Muslims make about the supremacy of Islamic faith. Here I shall illustrate my view-points, and it is up to the reader to decide if I had been right or wrong.

a) Allah

Who is this Allah? This legitimate question is very common, but there is no satisfactory answer. Many great thinkers have succinctly discussed about the origin of Allah considered, by Muslims, the only God, my past God, too. From their record it is established that before Islam, Allah was also the pagan god or deity. Research shows that Allah was a moon-god, whom the people of Quraish in Arabia, revered and worshiped.

Muslims have a completely different notion of Allah. The above claim of Allah being the god of the pagan Arabs will severely hurt ordinary Muslims. They will never accept claims of many scholars, since they will not agree that their Allah, who is invisible and living above the highest heaven, was once an idol-god of the Arab idolaters.

I consider the claim of the scholars about Allah as true. This is because Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah (slave of Allah). Muhammad’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib (slave of Muttalib), gave this name to his son in association with one of their deities. The truth lies here, because Abu Lahab, the uncle of Muhammad and one of the sons of Abdul Muttalib, had his original name as Abdul Uzza (slave of Uzza). We know that Uzza was one of the deities of the Quraish, and this name is also mentioned in the Quran (53:19, 20). It is natural that Abdul Muttalib chose another deity (Allah) as his other son’s name, Abdullah.

Thus, there is no surprise that Allah was certainly one of the esteemed deities of the Quraish, that Abdul Muttalib, the Quraish leader, gave this name to one of his sons. This reason prevents me from prostrating before a god that was once an idol, and later pretended to be a heavenly God. It is ridiculous to believe in the idol-god that he could be ever a heavenly God.

b) The Holy Quran

Muslims believe that the Quran is the most holy, inimitable, immutable, and comprehensive Holy Book. Every word in the Qur'an is from Allah, and no power on earth could ever change it. No book in the world, they assume, can be compared with the Quran. They think Quran is the book of justice and salvation of all problems. Its words are absolute, eternal, and are intact in the same way as it was revealed as divine messages 1,400 years ago. No one has the possession and power to change or erase its words or chapters because of the challenge of Allah (17:88).

Let us now discuss how the challenge of Allah, the Almighty, was countered by his own abrogated verses. There are strong evidences in Sahih Bukhari and Tirmizi that Allah could not honor his own words, because he had to replace his so-called immutable, divine, and most wise verses with other verses, or in many cases cancelled. My question is: “Why Allah, the wisest creator, needed to supersede his own verses? Why did he forget the previous verses?” Muslims’ answer to this question is: ”Because circumstances were changing through the period of revelations. It was necessary for a few verses to be abrogated, and a few to be replaced.”

The question again arises: “Why is it that those circumstances changed for only 23 years, in the life span of Muhammad, after he had claimed to be the prophet?”

Circumstances always change. Don't Muslims think that circumstances also changed since Muhammad’s time, and will continue to change? What shall we do now? Who will now abrogate such verses that clash with the present reality and in the future? When we raise such questions, the response from the Muslims is complete silence.

Another solid evidence by Muslim historians bear witness that the challenge of Allah was also turned down by his own devout follower Uthman bin Affan. Islamic history tells us that to prevent the misconceptions, variations and errors propagated by various groups of Muslims, Uthman, the third Caliph of Islam, burned the original text of the Holy Qur'an, keeping only the compilation ordered by him. Islamic historians write that, because of the uniformity in eloquence in rhetoric in Arabic among the tribes in Arabia, Islam was spreading rapidly worldwide. To clear all misconceptions among Muslims, and to save the ummah, therefore, Caliph Uthman made copies of his version of the Quran, and sent them to several regions. We may ask: why did not Allah reveal his verses in the same eloquence that are found today? Who gave authority to Uthman to burn the original Quran and to compile a new version?

It is also very interesting that when Uthman was elected as the caliph of Islam, he was about 70 or 72 years old. History shows us that Uthman had close relatives who belonged to Banu Umayya. This aged man was very easy to be tricked and manipulated. On the other hand, Amir Muaweeya, the son of Abu Suffian, was the governor of Syria. Islamic historians agree that on the day of conquest of Mecca, after Muhammad broke all the idols in front of the Quraish, many infidels among Abu Suffian and Amir Muaweeya embraced Islam, either by heart or by force. My conjecture is that Muaweeya and Abu Suffian never accepted Islam by heart, because they had no other option but to accept Islam. Thus, during the caliphate of Uthman, when Muaweeya was enjoying the governorship of Syria, he was very well aware that the old man Uthman cannot establish laws on his own. Uthman had to depend on his allies and kinsmen. Muaweeya had never forgotten his fellow men, killed by Muslims, and the desecration of their sacred idols by Muhammad. I think Muaweeya had been carrying this grudge against Islam since that day. Elected as the governor of Syria, he was desperately waiting for the precise time to avenge the humiliation of his idols in the hands of Muslims. Therefore, it is quite natural to think that it was Muaweeya, in the behind, who had urged Uthman, to burn the original Quran.

The Sahabas (companions of Muhammad) also played an important role to preserve the Quran. Muslims claim that, many Sahabas, with their incredible memory, retained the Qur'an in their hearts: the divine verses were untouchable, and protected from the attack of infidels and outsiders. Most part of the Quran, according to Muslims, was revealed in Mecca, before Muhammad's migration to Medina. In the initial stages of revelation, vine or wine was not considered as the act of Satan. We can easily assume that drinking alcohol was not a problem in the early age of Qur'an revelations. So, why later, Muhammad or Allah developed a great dislike for alcohol or vine? Even Muslims in Pakistan claim that Muhammad banned alcohol, because some Sahabas, including Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad), while in the state of drunkenness during prayer, uttered some inappropriate words that were not in conformity with Islam. So, it is logical to think that those Sahabas (companions of Muhammad), who routinely drank alcoholic drinks, did not deliver the divine messages properly. During the state of drunkenness they might have recited many verses differently from what Muhammad had revealed to them. Realizing this, the wisest and the mightiest Allah authorized Muhammad to abrogate and alter verses at his whims and fancies. Thus, we can say that not only many verses of the Qur'an had been abrogated, but many more verses have been changed by those, who were routinely vine drinkers.

Islamic history tells us about Abdullah bin Sa’d, one of the scribes of Muhammad from Mecca. After Muhammad migrated to Medina he retained Abdullah to write the Quranic verses as dictated to Muhammad by Allah. During a “divine inspiration session”, Abdullah discovered the fraudulence of Muhammad, and hastily returned to Mecca. Abdullah was convinced that Muhammad was an imposter, that Allah had never sent any divine messages to Muhammad. Muhammad never forgave Abdullah. When Muhammad invaded Mecca he ordered Abdullah bin Sa’d be killed, along with other pagans who had annoyed Muhammad in the past. We may wonder why a person, who was the writer of divine law and sacred verses, had to be killed by the Prophet of Islam. According to various sources, Abdullah bin Sa’d was a wise and knowledgeable man in Mecca. It was his habit, whenever prophet of Islam asked him to write such verse on anything, he -- with his wisdom, knowledge, and ability -- used to suggest Muhammad changes to verses revealed by Allah. Regardless, Muhammad gave importance to the wisdom of Abdullah bin Sa’d over to the wisdom of Almighty Allah. It was when Abdullah boasted to Muhammad’s other disciples about it that he got into troubles and fled to Mecca to save his life. That was why, on the day of the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad wanted him to be killed. It was Abdullah’s good luck that Uthman b. Affan was his foster brother and saved his life. Thus, we may conclude that a talented man, with profound intellect, imagination and ability had constructed the Qur'an.

Contradictions in the Holy Quran, is another lengthy topic, which I do not wish to discuss in this article. Suffice it to say, numerous contradictions in the verses of the Holy Quran have been discovered and more will be found in the future.

c) The character and deeds of the Holy Prophet of Islam

Muslims present the character of Muhammad as exemplary. He is considered the most honest, pious, humble, incorruptible, righteous, balanced, genius, and Rehmat ulil Alimeen (a mercy for whole Universe)…and so on—it is an endless list.

Let us discuss his character and deeds sourced from impeccable Islamic sources, such as ahadith (Muhammad's traditions) and sira (Muhammad's biography).

(1) Muhammad, Aisha and their dating: Muhammad's first wife was Khadija, an influential and rich trader of Mecca. It is true that Muhammad did not marry any other women until Khadija's death. He was very devoted to her, a rich woman in the Quraish tribe, through the rest of her life, until she died in 619 CE. Immediately after Khadija’s death, Muhammad started a chain of marriages. She first married Sauda, a widowed woman. Soon he added Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakar, the first caliph of Islam, to his harem. Narrations from Sahih Bukhari, the most authentic hadith compilation, gives us evidence that Aisha was only six years old when Muhammad, 50 or 51, married her. When Aisha was nine, she had her first night with Muhammad, then 53 or 54.

Was it a love affair between Aisha and Muhammad? Muslims claim that, when Muhammad consummated Aisha at the age of nine, she had already attained puberty. But this claim is baseless and week, because many traditions from different ahadith prove that after consummation of her first night with Muhammad, Aisha still played with her dolls. We know that a girl, shortly before her puberty, will quit playing with dolls; otherwise, she is considered a retard.

Today, this kind of marriage with forty to or fifty years of age difference is considered highly contemptible and condemnable, especially in Western countries. Even in Islamic Republic of Pakistan, parents would not give their six or nine-year-old daughters in the hands of a fifty plus-year-old man. This tradition may still exist partially in some backward remote villages, but to the vast majority of Pakistanis, this custom is not acceptable. Muslims defend by saying that this practice was followed in the primitive age in Arabia. What this Muslim claim means is that Muhammad’s Sunnah to consummate his marriage with Aisha at the age of nine was admirable in Muhammad's time, but in the 21st century, this tradition is not a civilized way of life. In other words, Muslims themselves prove that Muhammad’s actions and character do not bear hallmark of perfection for all time.

(2) Muhammad’s grabbing of his daughter-in-law: Zainab, a young and beautiful woman, was one of Muhammad’s many wives. She was formerly married to Zaid bin Harith, Khadija’s former slave and a black, whom pagan Muhammad had freed and adopted as his son. This relation tells us that Zainab was the daughter-in-law of Muhammad before he married her. The story goes that one day Muhammad went to visit Zaid at his home. Zaid was not at home. After Zainab informed him of the same from inside the house, Muhammad still peeped into the house to catch a glimpse of a scantily-dressed Zainab inside. According to Tabari and Ibn Sa’d, the posture of a half-naked Zainab highly aroused Muhammad, so much so, that he started praising his Lord and mumbled some words that Allah, aware of all his intentions, could understand. He had to rush to one of his wife, another Zainab, to sleep immediately in order to cool down his arousal.

After Zainab informed Zaid of Muhammad’s actions and his mumblings, Zainab understood Muhammad’s longings for her, and divorced her to pave way for Muhammad to fulfill his lust for her. On this occasion Allah revealed verse 33:37. It is clear from this verse that the companions of Muhammad in Medina objected to his act of marrying his adopted son's wife. Being an unacceptable custom among the Arabs, it was a reasonable objection. To confront this objection, however, Allah sent down divine messages in the form of warning of his wrath upon those, who make trouble for his beloved prophet.

The marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged by Muhammad himself. How come, a marriage that is convened by prophet himself was dissolved? Why Muhammad, the foreteller of the advent of Imam Mehdi and the Day of Judgment, did not perceive the divine conclusion of the marriage between him and Zainab in the first place? Where was Allah, the knower of the past and future, who would prevent marriage between Zaid and Zainab? I know Muslims will claim that Muhammad knew only what Allah told him. This is an absurd claim; it further supports my reason to disdain Islam.

To learn more about the affair of Muhammad and Zainab, please visit this page.

(3) Maria the Copt, the sweetheart and sex-slave of Muhammad: Maria, a Coptic Christian slave-girl, was another sweetheart of Muhammad. She became the sex-slave of the Prophet of Islam. According to Islamic sources, she was a very attractive young girl and Muhammad was more attracted to her than to any of his wives. One day, Muhammad tried to send Hafsa (one of his wives) away, by telling that her father (Umar) wanted to see her. As Hafsa went out leaving Muhammad alone with Maria in her house, the Prophet of Islam started to give glad tidings to Maria that if she made the Prophet happy, Allah would make her happy too, and she will never be miserable in her life and hereafter. As Maria heard this, she smiled and looked at the Prophet. This gesture of the former filled Muhammad's heart and mind with love, passion and desire for her.

Hafsa retuned rather quickly, annoyed that Muhammad had told her a lie. She entered her room, to discover that the lustful Prophet of Islam deeply engaged in sex with Maria, and she started shouted at the Prophet. He did not expect Hafsa to return so soon. While the proud young and beautiful Maria was giggling on this scene, argument started between Muhammad and Hafsa. Muhammad tried his best to assuage Hafsa and keep her mouth shut. But Hafsa, as courageous and petulant as her father (Umar), rebuked Muhammad for his deception and the evil deed. Soon, Hafsa shared this story with Aisha, and they tried to tease the prophet of Islam by saying that his mouth stank of home-made alcoholic drink. Muslims try to defend Muhammad by claiming it was the smell of honey as Muhammad loved honey. Accordingly, after this affair, Muhammad never drank honey. We should note that honey does not stink. It was, perhaps, the ‘honey’ that flowed between Maria’s legs that might have caused Muhammad's mouth to stink.

Later on, Hafsa and his other wives banded together to deny sex to Muhammad. But Allah---always eager and happy to see Muhammad’s every desire fulfill and defend his every action, however, vile---revealed verses to defend his beloved prophet to confront the allegations of his wives.

To know more about this sordid act of Muhammad, please visit this page.

Continue reading above article here

Muslims versus History - The ridiculous lengths that Palestinians will go to lay claim to a Jewish city.

At the end of the day and after all the speeches, the Palestinian state - and with it the State of Israel - will rise or fall on Jerusalem, the most legitimate and greatest Israeli settlement ever. This is the field where the battle should be conducted. This is where our chances are good of explaining our right and its implementation, from King David's time to 1948 and the Six-Day War, without stammering and without apologizing.

When it comes to Jerusalem, there is no need to mention either natural growth or natural development; what is at stake is nature itself, the nature of our connection to this city and the realization of the right that is rooted in our religion, our history, and 2,000 years of memory and longing, during which the Jewish presence in Jerusalem never ceased to exist.

Half the work has been done for us in recent months by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian media, which no longer have any sense of the absurd extent to which they have magnified their false claims about Jerusalem. It is possible, Palestinian television reported not long ago, that there will be an artificial earthquake that will cause the Al-Aqsa Mosque to collapse because the Israelis were considering carrying out a nuclear test in the Dead Sea. The mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein, is sticking with conventional theories concerning "the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque," - whether by "explosives, dropping bombs from the air or from a distance," or "by means of the tunnels." Sheikh Jamal Mohammed Bawatneh, the Palestinian minister of Waqf, is also convinced that the occupation regime is seeking excuses to
invade the mosque.
But it isn't only the "Al-Aqsa is in danger" scare campaign that is underway. The Jewish presence in Jerusalem is perceived these days as a desecration of the Muslim character of the city, so the Palestinian narrative is presented in response, with Dr. Marwan Abu Khalaf, the director of the Institute of Islamic Archeology at Al-Quds University, saying that "under every stone and in every corner, on every street and at every bend in Jerusalem there are remains that say: 'We are Arab, we are Muslim.'"

Mahmoud Habbash, the Palestinian Authority minister of agriculture and social affairs, has made it clear for the umpteenth time that the Temple was not located in the Holy City at all, while researcher Dr. Hasan Sanallah has gone back to the days of the 1929 riots, related to disputes over access to the Western Wall, and expresses criticism of the use of the term "Wailing Wall." According to him, "The occupation is falsifying the facts, and it has no right to the Walls of Al-Aqsa."

With such a narrative, it is no wonder that the Palestinian Authority - and not just Hamas - is defining Jerusalem as ribat land, meaning that Muslims are religiously mandated to fight for it and hold on to it, liberating the land for the sake of Islam. This, of course, comes on top of the Palestinians' denial of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and their revision of the city's history.

It is not difficult to undermine these lies. Indeed, according to many interpretations, the Al-Aqsa Mosque mentioned in the Koran - which many say appeared to Mohammed in a dream - was originally in the seventh heaven of Mecca and Medina, and not terrestrial. Suffice it to say that Al-Aqsa is not mentioned at all in the verses from the Koran that adorn the interior walls of the Dome of the Rock, that Muslims' journey to Jerusalem is always considered a visit rather than a pilgrimage, and that Jerusalem was never the capital of this land in the days of Muslim rule.

But while all this is correct, it is ultimately of negligible importance. The main thing is to tell the Jewish story of Jerusalem again and again - a story that is unequalled, and without which the Jewish people would not have undergone a revival here, in the Land of Israel - to tell it without tiring, without blinking and without getting confused, either by those among us who are mistaken or who mislead others, or by those who pose an external threat.

The 'unchangeable and fixed' word of Allah apparently went through a few early revisions.

Will the Ancient Quranic Manuscripts of Sana’a Spell the Downfall of Islam?

The 1972 discovery of the earliest surviving Quranic manuscripts in the Great Mosque of Sana'a conclusively shows that the present Quran is different from the early manuscripts. It proves the Islamic claim---that the Quran is infallability, that it is Allah's original revelation word by word, and that it is copy of the version kept in a tablet in heaven---outright false. Will this shocking find unravel the dawnfall of Islam?

“Respect for the faith of sincere believers cannot be allowed either to block or deflect the investigation of the historians... One must defend the rights of elementary historical methodology”. --- Maxime Rodhinson, 1981, p. 57

Muslims generally believe, thanks to Quranic assertions, that both the Old and New Testaments are corrupted and seriously changed. They say, for a Holy Scripture to be authoritative, it has to be preserved without any changes at all, and point to the Quran, which, they claim, has been preserved word by word and letter by letter, as was revealed to Muhammad by Allah. The Quran itself claims: 'no change there can be in the words of God' (10:64) and, 'there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God' (6:34).

But then how ridiculous the 'doctrine of abrogation' is, by which later revelations cancel previous ones, as Quran (2:106) confirms, 'revelations… We abrogate or cause to be forgotten'. Also, a Hadith (6:558) from Sahih Bukhari confirms that Muhammad forgot many verses. Again Sunaan ibn Majah (3:1944) records that, after Muhammad’s death, some revelations were eaten up by a goat.

How divine words can be eaten, changed, cancelled or abolished, in spite of Allah’s specific claim in 10:64 and 6:34?

Are not all these claims of Allah self-contradictory?

Amazingly, these plain truths do not bother the Muslims at all. Probably, if we can present another “authentic” Quran, which is different from existing standard form, Muslims may give way to logical thinking.

The devastating truth is that a large number of ancient Quranic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qurans are not forged one by religious rivalries. Moreover, these Qurans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels.

This is, probably, the most embarrassing event to Muslims in the 1,400-year history of Islam.

The Great Mosque of Sana’a is one of the oldest Mosques in Islamic history. The date of building goes back to 6th year of Hijrah when Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a Mosque at Yemen, which was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time.

In 1972, during the restoration of this Great Mosque (heavy rain had caused the west wall of the Mosque to collapse), laborers, while working in a crown space between the structure’s inner and outer roofs, stumbled upon an amazing grave-site, which they did not realize at that time. Mosques do not accommodate graves, and this site contained no gravestone, no human remains and no funeral relics. It contained an unappealing mountain of old parchment and paper documents, damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by rain and dampness for over a thousand years.

The ignorant laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them carelessly into some 20 potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the Mosque’s minarets, where they were locked away. The manuscripts would have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa, then the President of Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, because no scholar in his country was capable of working on this rich find. In 1977, he managed to interest a visiting non-Muslim German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and find a restoration project.

Soon after the project began, it became clear that the “paper grave” is a resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different codices of the Quran. Muslim authorities during early days cherished the belief that worn out and damaged copies of the Quran must be removed from circulation leaving only the unblemished editions of the scripture for use. Also such a safe place was required to protect the books from looting or destruction if invaders come and hence the idea of a grave in the Great Mosque in Sana’a, which was a place of learning and dissemination of the Quran and was in existence from the first century of the Hijrah.

Restoration of the manuscript has been organized and supervised by Gerd R. Puin of Saarland University, Germany. Puin is a renowned specialist on Arabic calligraphy (the study of fine and artistic handwriting) and Quranic paleography (the study of ancient writing and documents). For ten years he extensively examined those precious parchment fragments. In 1985, his colleague H. C. Graf V. Bothmer joined him.

Carbon-dating puts the origin of some of the parchments to 645–690 CE, while calligraphic dating has pointed to their origin in 710–715 AD. Some of the parchment pages seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries, i.e. Islam’s first two centuries, perhaps the oldest Quran in existence.

Continue reading here

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

M@s%u#b*t&n$ 'Arabs' Endure Discrimination at Israeli Beach...

Dead Sea resort beach says will not allow entry to groups of single Palestinian men without families due to frequent complaints of harassment by women. Beach director defends decision: Last weekend several Palestinian youths snuck in and started masturbating in front of tourists.

Men from the Palestinian Authority looking to enter the 'New Kaliya' beach on the Dead Sea are not allowed entry if they are alone. Ynet has learned that the beach directorate has decided to allow the men in only if they are with their families, citing repeated complaints of sexual harassment by female patrons.

Danny, a 35-year-old from Tel Aviv, visited the beach on Friday and said he was shocked by the policy being enacted at Kaliya. "I went with two friends and in line behind us were two Arabs. The girl at the register just wouldn't let them in," he recalls.

As the day progressed Danny said he realized the scene he had witnessed was not an isolated incident. "It kept repeating itself. At one point I asked the people at the register if they really weren't letting Arabs in and they answered straight out that they were not. One of the workers told me that the men just aren't let in alone, but families are. I asked why and she said that they bothered the female tourists… she said there's nothing that can be done, it's just the way it is. What, Israeli hooligans don't bother girls – just Arabs?"

The Kaliya administration confirmed the policy, but stressed that entry is only denied to Palestinian Arabs who come to the beach in groups. Manager Itay Rahm told Ynet in response: "This is a very serious problem, not just here but for all the Dead Sea beaches. Based on our experience, we don't let young Palestinian men in because of numerous harassment complaints.

"They're not allowed to hit on girls in their villages so they come here to harass them. Just to make a point, the day that man talked about a couple of Palestinian youths managed to sneak in and then started masturbating in front of female tourists."

He added that Israeli Arabs are able to enter the beach without any problems. "It's important to stress that we're talking about Palestinians here, not Israeli Arabs. And this isn't about racism, we let entire families in because I know that when there are women around they won't do anything."


Sunday, June 14, 2009

Muslim scholar opposed to suicide bombing killed by a suicide bomber

Dr. Sarfaraz Naeemi was targeted and killed in the suicide blast only two days after he gave a Fatwa and declared suicide killing as Un-Islamic. Police sources told KUNA that after the Fatwa, Dr. Naeemi had received death threats and police had provided him fool-proof security measures.

Read about it here at BBC NEWS SOUTH ASIA

Monday, June 08, 2009

Muslims Cane Woman for Talking to Hindu Man... .

A Muslim mother has been caned for talking to a Hindu man in Bangladesh, police said Saturday, prompting fresh concerns about a rise in cases of harsh treatment of women under strict Islamic law.

The punishment was carried out in a remote village in Muslim-majority Bangladesh on the orders of village elders, local police chief Enamul Monowar told AFP by telephone.

The village elders found Kamala Begum, 38, a mother of four, guilty under Islamic sharia law of chatting with an unidentified Hindu man, Monowar said. Hindus make up around 10 percent of Bangladesh's population.

"The villagers got bundles of 25 sticks and hit her four times on the back. They claimed it was a symbolic punishment. But she's humiliated and has been in great mental pain," Monowar said.

It was the third such reported case in two weeks in the country and stirred concern among women's groups in Muslim-majority but officially secular Bangladesh, about what they say is a rise in the brutal treatment of women under locally applied Islamic laws.

"In the last few months, we have seen villagers invoking sharia to mete out barbaric punishments to women," said Salma Ali, the head of rights group Bangladesh National Woman Lawyers Association.

Police have arrested one man and are looking for others who meted out the punishment to the woman in Shason in northeastern Bangladesh, Monowar said.

Earlier this month a man and a woman were caned for adultery after being convicted by a village court, police said.

Village courts are common in Bangladesh, particularly in more conservative rural areas, but are not recognised as legitimate courts of law.

Also this month, a 22-year-old unwed woman was caned 39 times and left fighting for her life after saying a neighbour was the father of her six-year-old son.

The case caused a national outcry with Premier Sheikh Hasina ordering the woman shifted from her village home to the capital for treatment. The woman is now in a stable condition.

So far, Bangladesh has been little affected by the spread of hardline Islamic sentiment that has badly shaken its South Asian neighbour Pakistan.

But women's rights groups say there has been a spike in the number of "fatwas" -- judgments in line with sharia law -- in rural areas.

"In the last few months, we've seen villagers invoking sharia to mete out barbaric punishments to women," said lawyer Ali.

"It's disturbing sign and a real concern. It shows some parts of the country are becoming more conservative," she said.

Bangladesh has been ruled by female leaders for 16 of the last 19 years and prides itself for empowering women.

But although women hold high government and private sector posts, a move last year to give equal property rights to women was scuttled by Islamist protests.

The Awami League government has vowed to eradicate militancy from the country, hit by series of blasts by outlawed Islamic groups in 2005, and has warned of "zero tolerance" for harsh sharia punishments.


Thursday, June 04, 2009

المركز الإسلامي في جزر المالديف بناء اكثر من المقابر

المركز الإسلامي في جزر المالديف
وزارة الشؤون الإسلامية وقرر اغلاق مساجد مقامة فوق المقابر. وهو المسجد الرئيسي في العاصمة بنيت على مدى عامين والمقابر. لا يمكن للمرء أن يكون متأكدا تماما من أن البشرية لا تزال إزالتها تماما عندما كبيرة وكان المسجد قد بني في عام 1984.

ونحن نطالب وزير الشؤون الإسلامية وإغلاق وهدم المسجد

The Ministry of Islamic Affairs has decided to close mosques built over graveyards. The main mosque in the capital city is built over two graveyards. One cannot be absolutely sure that human remains were completely removed when the big mosque was built in 1984. We call upon the Minister of Islamic Affairs to close the mosque and demolish it.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Kuwaiti MP's Walk Out to Protest Unveiled Women Lawmakers...

The appeal to "overcome differences and to turn the page for the good of the country" from the Emir of Kuwait to politicians during the inauguration of the new national assembly found its first hurdle after a few minutes, when 14 MPs left Parliament to protest against the two female MPs who were not wearing veils and the government not presenting their economic programme, reports Kuwait Times. Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al Sabah urged members of both the executive and legislative branch, whose differences have cost the oil-rich country six governments and three elections in the past three years, to "contribute to the new climate of political change", looking towards globalisation, the only way to "raise Kuwait to the position of a modern country". The fundamentalist and tribal MPs, two groups that did not do well in the May 16 elections, walked out of Parliament, protesting against a lack of respect for Koranic laws which state that women must wear veils, and a 5-year delay for a strategic economic plan. (ANSAmed).

The Evils of Islamic Political Ideology: Oppression of non-Muslims

According to a central tenet of Islam, any lands that Muslims ever conquered or controlled belong to Islam for eternity. Muslims believe themselves "the best of peoples, evolved for mankind" (Qur'an 3: 110)---and appointed to hold all lands in trust for Allah. Both Sunni and Shi'ite followers of Mohamed's 7th century ideology also envision an end-time Islamic Apocalypse forcibly gathering all non-Muslims within their faith---eliminating all known beliefs except Islam---and rendering the whole planet earth an Islamic trust.

On these shari'a (i.e., Islamic law) concepts rest the Muslim contention that the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is inadequate: The UDHR neither appoints Muslims guardians of humanity, nor restricts the rights of non-Muslims and women. Therefore, 56 Muslim nations in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights obsolete and irrelevant. They want "an independent permanent body to promote human rights" among U.N. member states "in accordance with" the Cairo Declaration and its foundational shari'a legal code---denying all essential human rights to non-Muslims and women.

The OIC ultimately hopes to replace universal human rights with universal shari'a law, granting superiority to the Muslim ummah ("nation") while imposing dhimmitude, --- i.e., intense, institutionalized subservience, probably best described as human rights apartheid --- upon all others. Indeed, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), rooted in shari'a law and adopted in August 1990 at the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, like the Qur'an presupposes that mankind is already obliged to follow all commandments of Islamic law:

"[N]o one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend in whole or in part or violate or ignore [fundamental rights and universal freedoms for Muslims] in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible ... for their safeguard. (emphasis added)

The OIC has been building pressure for years. In December 2005, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal revealed his "Mecca Declaration" to a Jeddah "preparatory meeting of OIC ministers"---a 10-year "plan of action to confront the challenges of the 21st century" to counter a "harsh offensive on Islam from enemies abroad and some of its own children with deviant ideologies." Turkish OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the plan as a "roadmap for Islamic common action."

Indeed, the OIC has always adulated tyranny and oppression, conforming to the classical Islamic ideology of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna---and his contemporary Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Upon his 1929 appointment as Jerusalem mufti, al-Husseini circulated faked postcards of Al Aqsa mosque flying a "Zionist" flag atop the Temple Mount to inflame Muslim hatred and violence against Jerusalem's Jewish majority. [1] The Muslim Brotherhood mimicked this very "defense" of Islam by establishing the OIC after a lone lunatic man set fire to Al Aqsa in 1969. The MB in this way conveniently wall-papered its hope of eliminating the "Zionist occupation" --- that is, of entirely purging Jews and Judaism from the ancient Jewish capitol, just as Mohamed had purged Jews from Mecca and Arabia.

In March 1970, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the First Islamic Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs established its Jeddah General Secretariat. (No surprise that the OIC now wants to wrest sovereignty over the Temple Mount from Israel.) In 1973, the OIC planned to discriminate further by creating the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) "in accordance with the principles of the Shari'a."

For decades afterwards, longtime World Union of Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) representative, historian David G. Littman, warned of a concerted effort at the U.N. to supplant universal human rights with the shari'a-based discriminatory system of dhimmitude. He was correct.

In May 2007, 36th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) in Islamabad resolved to impose human rights apartheid through a new Islamic Charter on Human Rights, a Convention on Women's Rights in Islam and an Islamic Covenant Against Racial Discrimination. The ICFM also seeks U.N. "observer status" for various "interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs)," undoubtedly including many Islamic "charities."

Naturally, Muslim leaders deny their discriminatory intentions. At the 6th Session of the Human Rights Council on Dec. 10, 2007, for example, Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N. Masood Khan falsely contended on OIC behalf that its 56 Muslim member nations had "made substantial contributions to the development of the Universal Declaration and the two International Covenants," concerning matters of "religious freedom, social justice, the indivisibility of human rights and the right to self-determination."

Yet Islamic and African countries that regularly violate human rights dominate the HRC, which favors Islamic blasphemy laws making it a capital offense to quote Qur'anic passages or shari'a law, much less to criticize Mohammed in any forum at the U.N. This shari'a-based mindset takes Islam as inviolable---and all that that implies.

Thus in 2008 the Geneva office of the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council---where historian Littman is an NGO---began implementing shari'a principles even as it made the very word verboten. On March 26, 2009, followed the 23-nation HRC "simple majority" passage of a Pakistani resolution to protect "against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

As Islamic scholar Ann Elizabeth Mayer notes in Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics,

[N]o theory in international law ... supports the notion that fundamental human rights may be curtailed --- much less permanently curtailed --- by reference to the requirements of any particular religion. Under international law, non-Muslims cannot be legally deprived of their rights by the use of Islamic standards. There is also no warrant under international law for Muslims being deprived of their rights due to governmental application of restrictions taken from Islamic law." (Mayer, Westview Press, 2nd edition, p. 64)

Leading Muslim figures frequently claim to support universal human rights---a point often discussed at Right Side News. Yet the OIC hopes to eliminate freedom of speech. Increasing implementation of human rights and religious apartheid, however the OIC veils it, will surely follow if the OIC succeeds.

Mohamed established his ideology's central shrine at the Kabba in Mecca. There, pre-Islamic Arabians worshiped a pantheon of gods, including idols, stones and "heavenly bodies" such as the sun, moon and stars, according to Sir William Muir's 19th century Life of Mahomet. Atop this pre-Islamic prayer site, Mohamed built thinking and a 1400 year history espousing suppression and oppression of others. It steals and suppresses other peoples' sacred books, prophets, holy sites---and above all, their very human rights---with a hope for end-game Muslim supremacy over all others.

Among those fiercely opposing such religious and human rights apartheid, has been the incomparable AtlasShrugs publisher, Pamela Geller. In this third interview in an exclusive Right Side News series, investigative journalist Alyssa A. Lappen continues her discussion with Geller---this time on Islamic oppression of non-Muslims.

Continue here