Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Criticizing Islam

♦ Under Sharia, those who insult Muhammad or Allah are to be put to death. So are those who desecrate the Qur'an, or commit other acts of blasphemy. This tradition began with Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith and by his biographers. There is also a Qur'anic basis for it.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?" (Apparently not the adulterer or others for whom death is proscribed).

Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (59:369) - This recounts the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting. He asked his followers, 'Who will rid me of this man?' and several volunteered. al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life.

Bukhari (3:106) - "The Prophet said, "Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire."

Bukhari (4:241) - Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority.

♦ Some well reported controversies:

♦ The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 by author Salman Rushdie caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world, as it was perceived as an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The title refers to a disputed Muslim tradition that is related in the book. According to this tradition, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses to the Qur’an accepting three goddesses who used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings.

According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the "Satanic" verses).

However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities.

On 14 February 1989, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety).

A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for years afterward. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

The publication of the book and the fatwā sparked violence around the world, with bookstores firebombed. Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.

Many more people died in riots in Third World countries.
The fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie was reaffirmed by Iran in

Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him.

♦ Theodore Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

On the morning of the 2nd of November 2004, while cycling to his office, Theo was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim.

He was shot 8 times and almost decapitated, all in broad daylight to horrified onlookers. A manifesto was pinned to his body with a large knife, threatening Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

♦ In December 2005. A Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad by Kurt Westergaard.

This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.

On 12 February 2008, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) announced the arrest of three Muslims, two Tunisians and one Moroccan born Dane, who were charged with planning to murder Westergaard.

After the plot was foiled, the Danish secret service was made responsible for protecting Westergaard. He was placed under police surveillance when traveling to and from work. His house was fitted with steel doors, a panic room, reinforced glass in the windows and surveillance cameras.

On 2 January 2010, a 28-year-old Somali Muslim intruder armed with an axe and knife entered Westergaard's house and was subsequently shot and wounded by police. Westergaard was unharmed due to security precautions in his house. He fled to a panic room when he saw the intruder standing in the hallway wielding an axe.

Westergaard was separated from his five-year-old granddaughter who was left sitting in the living room just meters away from the intruder. The intruder attempted to break down the reinforced door with his axe, shouting phrases like "We will get our revenge!", "Revenge!" and "Blood!

Here is a link to the original 12 cartoons in question:

♦ Outspoken Dutch MP Geert Wilders is no stranger to death threats. It was reported that during his widely publicized visit to the House of Lords, Geert traveled with 4 Special Forces security guards, armed with machine guns.

Geert Wilders outraged the Islamic world for speaking the truth on the dangers of Islam and producing a short film entitled ‘Fitna’.

285 death threats have directly targeted anti-jihadist Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders since 2004.

Left wing Dutch politicians are constantly complaining in parliament about the rising cost of protecting Wilders from these very real jihadist death threats: the budget for the 2006 protection of Wilders handled 145 protection orders in 2006 - in 2005 there were 110.

The service's entire budget for 2007 - which includes the assignment to protect Wilders 24/7, was 34 million Euros/ 46 million USD.

♦♦Do you feel the love and peace of Islam?♦♦

(sources:,,, answering,

Tuesday, April 27, 2010


November 17, 2008
Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. President, Violent Crimes Institute, LLC
- Excerpt from Chapter 1, “Disturbed: Terrorist Behavioral Profiles” (2008)
On September 1, 2004, terrorists stormed a school in Beslan, Russia, and perpetrated one of the most heinous terror attacks in history. Though many people may have heard of this attack, it is very likely that most do not know what really happened there. The reality is so dark that few dare speak of what went on.

There are predators in wait lurking everywhere searching for unsuspecting victims. If a person has a proclivity or a secret desire, that inclination can easily come out if an opportunity arises. And that is what happened at Beslan. The terrorists immediately killed the men because they wanted no resistance for their plans. Then, when they saw the helpless girls in front of them, the temptation became too much. Their perverse dreams came true.

Beslan was clearly a sexual homicide/sexual suicide. That is, the offenders wanted more than simple terrorism. Some of the terrorists at Beslan were hired guns who did not plan on dying that day. They had not thought things through and did not realize that the Russians would not let them out alive.

Then, once they were inside, and the realization dawned on them, plans changed.

Things had deteriorated when the media reported that there were only 354 victims. Wanting to have a dramatic impact, the terrorists exploded with anger. There were 1200 victims, and the Russians were trying to down play the incident. The terrorists said they would have to eliminate victims to fit with what the media had reported. Their demeanor worsened, and they got really mean.

It was then that they began raping the girls. They wanted sex as they killed, and this is sexual homicide. A sex killer gets excited when he thinks about forcing himself inside an unwilling victim, but the rape itself does not produce the ultimate excitement. It is the rape followed by the killing that is arousing. This is what happened at Beslan.

One by one, females were targeted. The sex killers looked for the perfect victims, and after zeroing in, they grabbed and disrobed the little girls in the middle of the gym. There were muffled cries as the girls were humiliated in front of everyone. They were stripped, raped, and sodomized by several men. Not content to simply rape, the terrorists used their guns and other objects to penetrate the screaming victims while the other hostages were forced to watch. And the terrorists laughed. They laughed as they violated the children and made them bleed. What few people know is that some of the girls died as a result of being raped with objects. The internal damage was so severe that without immediate medical attention, the girls bled to death. Those who managed to survive required extensive reconstructive surgery and painful recoveries.

But raping the girls was not enough for the deviants who had entered the school. The terrorists beat the other children. In fact, beatings took place regularly, and as they pummeled the little ones, the terrorists smiled and laughed. It was said that they would strike a child and then watch the child cringe. When the youngsters recoiled, their captors laughed. This says the offenders enjoyed inflicting the suffering. They wanted their victims to suffer. Such behavior is sadistic. Bringing others pain brings the sadist pleasure. And the terrorists tortured the victims in many ways.

Along with causing paralyzing fear, the terrorists had an ally in the weather. It was extremely hot outside, but the school had no working air conditioner. As the heat raged, the hostages begged for water, and at first, some was given. Time crept on, and the terrorists became increasingly cruel. They drank in front of the hostages and mocked the children who were crying out for water. Things got so bad that the victims were forced to drink their own urine. In some cases, the hostages poured urine over one another in a feeble attempt to keep cool. Seeing the suffering enhanced the joy of the perpetrators. In a twisted, ghoulish game, the terrorists put water in front of the children who were desperately thirsty and told them if they reached for the water, they would be killed.

Still, this horror wasn’t enough for the hostage takers. Raping, beating, torturing, and mocking were just not evil enough. Thus, to further frighten the victims, one terrorist stated “we came here to die.” Russian Tagirovich Khuchbarov was called the “colonel.” When the children asked for water or to use the restroom, he simply stated “I’m not your uncle, I’m a terrorist … I came here to kill." Up until this point, the hostages most likely believed they could survive, but then…hearing these words…it meant they were to die too. This surely would have made the victims scream in their minds. If they cried out loud, they risked being beaten or shot.

As a crowd gathered outside the school, several terrorists goaded the townspeople. It was said that they “took delight” in egging the crowd on. They fired shots. They taunted. And again, they laughed. This psychopathic, sadistic behavior continued into the night as they ordered hostages to throw naked dead bodies out to the west yard. Yet, the Russian government did not want to negotiate with these offenders. Russian officials knew what they were dealing with: men intent on murder. However, in any hostage event, negotiations are necessary, but negotiations at Beslan were very difficult. When offered food, the terrorists refused because they feared poisoning. They had learned from Nord Ost and other terrorist standoffs. They would not make the same mistakes at Beslan.

Knowing that the elite Alpha and Vympel (Russia Special forces) would be called, the terrorists made it clear that if gas was used or electricity shut off, they would kill hostages immediately. The offenders had studied prior attacks and Russian counteroffensive techniques. So, they knew that Russia would stop at nothing to end the siege. With this knowledge, the terrorists had brought amphetamines with them to help stave off fatigue. This made them more wild and unpredictable. At one point, the terrorists allowed some hostages to leave. They told some mothers that they could get out with their babies and leave behind an older child or stay with both children. Those who left a child behind will certainly be tormented for the rest of their lives. At least one child who had been left behind survived the ordeal. One can only imagine that she could develop feelings of anger and maybe even hatred for the parent who abandoned her with psychopathic sexual sadists.

Russian Special Forces stormed the school using various techniques. Tanks were fired. Guns were fired. There were explosions. Alpha and Vympel members risked their lives to go into the school to save the children. In the end, nothing but bloodshed was achieved that day at Beslan. There were 330 people who died. Of those, 186 were the children. Blame has been tossed back and forth between the Russian government and the terrorists.

Critics have argued that evidence points to the fact that several of the terror attackers had been in Russian police custody prior to the attack. There were questions as to how these people managed to get out of jail to commit the atrocity, casting suspicion on the government itself. Conspiracy theories follow most big terror attacks. But there is no doubt that hostilities between the terrorists and the Russian government were not quieted. In fact, due to the horrific ending, anger has grown. In the end, this wretched act accomplished nothing but mass murder. So why bother with such attacks? Who are these people ready to lay down their lives for their cause?

What makes them tick?

Copyright Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. “Disturbed” is now available for sale at: Contributing Editor Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D., is president of the Violent Crimes Institute LLC, and is author of “The New Predator”,” Vulture” andDisturbed: Terrorist Behavioral Profiles”.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Halal, Haram, and Negis

By Jahanshah Rashidian

If you randomly walk in a Muslim district in the West especially in western Europe, you will certainly find somewhere, at least in one corner, an Islamic butchery with the word ”halal” written on its shop-window. For the products of meat, the word “halal” is a badge of Islamic quality.

Muslims believe that since blood is not ritually a pure substance, slaughter is necessary to inhibit the thorough draining of all of the animal’s blood. Furthermore, the verse” Bismillah al Rahman Al Rahim”, in the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful, is necessary to render the meat halal or lawful to eat.

The word halal refers, here, to meat killed and prepared in line with Islamic dietary laws. Jewish and Islamic religions demand that slaughter is carried out with a cut to the neck or throat, rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter.

Generally, halal means anything permissible under Islamic law, in contrast to haram, that which is forbidden. This includes behaviour, speech, dress, conduct. The term halal is also used to judge the right of sexuality after marriage, even temporarily marriage that is a Shiite tradition called “Sigheh” which is blamed by other sects of Islam as a “legalised” prostitution. Vaginal intercourse or rape of his own female slave, a married woman whose husband has been killed by Muslim invaders, and a non Muslim prisoner of war is halal -- in this light, many political female prisoners of the Islamic Republic of Iran who were considered “non-Muslims”, were ”legally” raped by their guards before being executed.

In an extended sense, halal means fairness of business dealing or other types of transaction or activity. Therefore, it represents values that are held in high regard by Muslims. It contains standards for social norms, morals, foods and other services that meet Islamic regulations. Needless to mention, in Islamic countries, these are the only available standards for Muslims and non-Muslim minorities alike.

Slaughter is an old tradition of Jewish and Islamic clan society. As a matter of best practice, the killed animal is supposed to be distributed among the members of the clan right after being slaughtered so that each family can often have fresh meat to eat. Like many other traditions, this one was also taken over by Islam.

Slaughter reminds us of an old instinct of pre-historical hominoid, to which a prey must be killed by the hunter -- the instinct can be still seen by a great number of beasts of prey. In another perspective, we see a characteristic disposition of this instinct beyond Islamic laws (Sharia), where beheading cutting off limbs of the accused resemble to those routine rituals, where blood of the accused is figuratively considered as halal and the executer does a good deed “halal” job.

Halal bloodshed can be also a reason for honour killing in the Islamic societies. Honour killing is committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family. A female can be targeted by her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, having sex outside marriage, or even being the victim of a sexual assault.

Halal has nothing to do with prophylactic, hygienic, precautions or medical meaning. To better understand halal, we must see what its opposite term “haram” means. Haram has roots in revulsion which is an old instinct of evolution. Revulsion is a sense of loathing without any logical reason or clear explanation. As an instinct, it was a necessary reaction of early human beings when exposed to an unknown food, unknown object, or an unconventional situation.

Object of revulsion is culturally conditioned. It means whatever is repulsive for the members of a given society does not necessarily provoke the same revulsion for others. In a historical sense, the terms like halal and harm are nothing but the instinctive reflections which were integrated into Islam. In many cases, Islamic commandments and rituals are not only the traditional reflections of desert dwellers of pre-Islamic Arabia, but also based on the Prophet Muhammad’s habits, his sexual preferences, his favourite things, and his dietary habits.

Since sexuality is taboo in Islam, sexual organs, vaginal secretion and sperm are considered as “negis” (loathing and impure). Therefore, they should not be touched -- if unintentionally touched, ceremonial washing and rituals must be done. Not only urine and excrement of human and carnivores, but also blood and any slimy substance secreted by a mucous membrane of the body have more or less a similar sense of negis. Needless to mention, all these secreted or mucous substances, regardless of their odour and colour, belong to healthy function of our body.

Not only non Muslims, ethnic groups, slaves and women, but even animals in Islam are not freed from this discrimination. Dogs and pigs are the most negis animals. Term of “negis” characterises their absolute and unchangeable impurity. Pork meat and alcoholic drinks are absolutely haram. Dog as a “negis” animal can never be proper pet in a Muslim house. Touching a dog, especially a dog’s saliva, requires ritually hygienic procedure to get the hand clean -- if a dog eats from a dish, the dish must be ceremonially washed seven times, the first time with sand. Dog, despite all its uses in many ways and its irrefutable faith in his master, is discriminated as a negis creature.

While Marriage of Muslim men with women of the Book (Muslims, Christians and Jews), based on Islamic rituals, can be permitted, all other varieties of marriage between Muslim women and non- Muslim men are considered as haram. As a patriarchal religion, Islam granted a concession only to Muslim men. Muslim women are not allowed to marry men outside of Islam (unless they convert to Islam). No marriage is permitted between Muslims and “Mushriks” (atheists, polytheists, other members of belief systems which are considered by Muslims negis). The Koran says, “A believing slave woman is better than a mushrik woman”!

As mentioned, terms like halal, haram, and negis are not more than rituals of particular conditions and environment. These terms have no logic and scientific credentials at all. They are only the legacy of pre-Islamic values of the Arabian clan- society which still impose themselves on today’s society.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Religion of War

Why is Islam constantly a source of war, violence and discord?

What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War

By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, April 15, 2010

“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.”Koran 61:9

Why is Islam constantly a source of war, violence and discord?

The problem, simply enough, is theological because to its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported “final revelation” to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is only meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed.

Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith

Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, one must feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether it is by providing money and resources to the Jihadists or to be a Jihadist yourself. Because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. And anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic insecurities as blasphemy.

When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a teddy bear named Mohammed, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy. Because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs. What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus for the Christian—is the physical dominance of Islam to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith.

Therefore by waging war on the infidels, by planting a minaret in one of their cities, by forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position—to the Muslim, this is an act that affirms the truth and power of Islam. By causing infidels to “lose face”, the Muslim fulfills the Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all religions. By contrast, when Islam “loses face”, an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.

This creates the cycle of violence that the media loves to harp on so much, but it is not the result of Western oppression, it is the result of Muslims feeling oppressed if they are not on top. When your belief system explicitly proclaims its wille zur macht, its Will to Power, the idea of multiculturalism and co-existence becomes a joke. To co-exist with non-Muslims is itself blasphemous for a Muslim, which proclaims “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends” (Koran 5:51) and whose final command was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. Islam does not co-exist, for its followers, its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.

Islam has little to it but the material

Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position because their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material—Islam has little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated Jihadist, “curvaceous virgins… and an overflowing cup” (Koran 78:33-34). Islamic Heaven is essentially a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that Mohammed’s followers expected to find by following him in the first place, gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls.

The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death. Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, overflowing cups and girls—the Koran promised it to them in heaven anyway. One can imagine the gang or robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats trailing after Mohammed across desert dunes, their minds filled with the feverish promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have actually seemed plausible.

Out of such such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except Islam’s face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider’s clumsily hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans.

The very existence of people living free and happy, free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy

And now Islam’s vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a provocation. Every jealous never explodes into violent rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is blasphemous and a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed’s mission. Did Muslims never live somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed’s mission.

The very existence of people living free and happy, free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them into Islam, or under the rule of Islamic law. Either one enforces the supremacy of Islam, because it is not absolutely necessary that everyone believe in Islam. As a matter of fact it would be rather inconvenient as there is little point on being on top, if there isn’t anyone on the bottom. A world filled with nothing but Muslims, would deny the Believers the chance to lord it over the infidels. What matters though is that everyone be subservient to Islam, whether as Muslims or Dhimmis.

Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However, even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a particularly sore point, but not the only one. For all that the Koran rants about Jews and Christians, its ultimate aim is worldwide.

The intersection of Islam and Terrorism, inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist

The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is not coincidental or the result of specific political moves made by non-Muslim nations, as the conventional narrative claims. It is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest. The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a Bin Laden video. But the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem of Islam.

Islam and Satan


♦ One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muslims to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.

♦ The four primary facts:

1) Muhammad did not want to further offend the Meccans and he did not want God to reveal something to him that would cause further offence.

2) Muhammad desired a revelation that would bring peace between he and the Meccans.

3) When Muhammad began to recite the chapter called "The Star", Satan interjected some words and thoughts into Muhammad's heart and mind. This was coupled with Muhammad's own desires; thus Muhammad spoke Satan's words.

4) Later, Gabriel rebuked Muhammad for having spoken Satan's words. Muhammad admitted his sinful error and was then comforted by Allah.

♦ This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word.

In the Old Testament, if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death.
Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5:
"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. ... But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord you God ... So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets.

Think about it, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.

♦ TABARI volume 6, page 107
The messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was a follows.

Ibn Humayd - Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani - Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then

God revealed:
"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..." and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?

Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: "These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval.

"Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. The God established his verses. God is knower, wise.

Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words:

"Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers."
to the words: to whom he wills and accept. This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God?

When Muhammad brought a revelation from God canceling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His prophet, the Quraysh said,"Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else." Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the messenger of God.


There are three passages in the Quran that reference the event. These passages are recorded in the biographical material. The first is the actual passage found in chapter 53, called "The Star", (An-Najm), verses 19 through 26. The second passage is in chapter 22, called "The Pilgrimage", (Al-Hajj), verses 52, 53:

"Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. God is all-knowing and wise. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased, whose hearts are hardened ..

The third passage is chapter 17, called "The Night Journey", (Al Isra), verses 73 - 75:
"They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us."

All of these verses are mentioned in the biographical material. All of them were revealed in relation to Muhammad speaking Satan's words.

Note how Tabari records Muhammad's admittance of sin and repentance after Gabriel confronted him with his error. Afterwards, God supposedly comforts Muhammad with the verses from chapters 17 and 22. Ibn Sa'd records the same sequence of verses. After he admitted his sinful error, Muhammad was comforted by Gabriel. Who was this Gabriel?


There are references to the event found in Bukhari. Although the actual Satanic verses are not recorded by Bukhari, part of the event is related:

6.385 Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him.
What is of note here is that the Hadith states that after Muhammad spoke "The Star", the pagans prostrated. This is exactly what the four biographers state. Remember, the pagans were totally opposed to Muhammad. They disliked him; he frequently insulted their faith. Yet here, something Muhammad said, caused them to prostrate with him and the Muslims, in "one accord".

Muhammad had said something persuasive to move them to bow in worship. Of course it was the Satanic verses. There is no allusion to anything else in the biographical material. Neither is anything specifically recorded in Sahih Hadith or the Quran that refers to other than the Satanic Verses event.


The evidence proves that Muhammad spoke the Satanic verses. The four early biographers of Muhammad's life detail the story. Many traditions (Hadith) also establish it. There are references to it in the Sahih Hadith. Finally, there are specific references to it in the Quran. No one, with an open mind and honest heart, can doubt the event. It may make Muslims uncomfortable that Satan used their prophet, but in the least they should be forthright and honest about it and admit it to themselves. If they wish to follow a man who spoke Satan's words, that is their business.

Muhammad had a strange relationship with Satan. Was it really Gabriel choking Muhammad in the cave?

How many other words were influenced by Satan? Why would God make light of a prophet speaking Satan's words as God's?

Didn't God command in the Old Testament that false prophets should be put to death?

Didn't Jesus predict that false prophets would come and mislead many? (Matthew 24:11).

Muhammad had a deal with the devil. Satan led, he followed. If Muhammad began to get off course, Muhammad was corrected. Islam's denial of Christ's identity, is Satan's stronghold upon millions of people. Muslims follow one of the false prophets Jesus foretold.

One Christian writer addressing this question asked:

"Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find."


Friday, April 16, 2010

Child Brides

By Vin Ienco

Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.

What are the essential features of pedophilia?

Professors of psychiatry, Harold I. Kaplan MD and Benjamin J. Sadock MD. of New York University Medical School states the essential features to diagnose pedophilia are:

1. Identification with and narcissistic investment in immature sexual objects.

Muhammad's infatuation and relationship with Aisha fits this criterion. And Mohammad was vain too - he liked to use perfume and dye his hair (even as an old man).

2. Control, domination and seduction of children.

A slight recalcitrance on the part of his wives was met by intolerant threats like: "if he (Muhammad) divorce you, (Allah) will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins." [K 66.5]

3. Sexual activity with children is preferential and occurs repeatedly.

Aisha was ever present, right up to his last fatal breath and he preferred spending his nights with her. Aisha became Muhammad's favorite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant. [Sahih Bukhari 1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa'd pg165]

Is menses necessary indicator of sexual maturity?

Sexual maturity is NOT PURELY RELATED TO MENSES as for some peculiar reasons many Muslims have tried to say.

In the first place having or not having menses is not the criterion for sexual maturity, and thus of pedophilic behavior. We have cases here, of abducted girls, 12, 13, 14, well past their mens, and yet preferred by pedophiles as sexual objects.

Besides when Aisha was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her [Sahih Bukhari 5:235]- I am sure Aisha was not menstruating then . Or do Arab girls menstruate at the age of 4-5?

From Islamic Holy Text

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, BUT the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."

Where sex is akin to a crime, silence is admission of your guilt. What a corruption of "fitrah" (human nature).

What religion condones the destruction of childhood? What are we who daily avow our undying love for Allah to do against a system that ruthlessly oppresses its youngest and brightest?

What was Aisha's age?

I have heard other figures ... (A question also known as: How many of your own sources will you deny?)

All the relevant sources (Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hanbal, etc.) maintain that Aisha was betrothed to Mohammed when she was 6, and the marriage was consummated 3 years later.

'Mohammad - The Word of Allah' written by Anne-Marie Delcambre. (Anne-Marie Delcambre has a doctorate in 'Islamology', and taught Islamic Civilization at the Saint Joseph University of Beyrouth in Lebanon). On page 69, it says that he was married to her when she was 9 years old.

Dates commonly accepted by scholars: Birth Muhammad (570), birth Aisha(614 or 615). Bethrothal (620 or 621), Consummation of marriage (623 or 624). In particular the "consummation" of marriage is said to have taken place after the hidjra in Shawwal 1 or 2. Between 621 and 623 Asiha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. (Ref 1)

She could not have been more than 10 years when she went to live in Muhammad's house. The fact that she took her toys with her to her new home indicates that she was psychologically and socially still a child. And the fact that she was allowed to play with DOLLS indicates that she had NOT reached puberty by this time. ("The playing with the dolls and similar images was(is) forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty."Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13).

Besides, there is also Aisha's own statement which implies that she had NOT reached puberty when she moved into Muhammad's house [Sahih Bukhari 7.163]. I am sure she would have been able to recount accurately as to when and where she got her first menses. Most girls do remember such events rather accurately. (Refs 2)

? Muhammad had started to dream of a union with Aisha already when she was 4-5 years old: "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you... (And) I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen." He was to use a similar tactic when he wanted to marry his step son's wife. A tactic which Aisha later came to understand as fraud, as in: "Aisha said: O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." (Refs 2)

Muhammad wasted no time in realizing what he had been dreaming. Already when Aisha was 6 "The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." Here it does not seem that Abu Bakr consented to the marriage wholeheartedly.

Modern day Stats

In parts of Ethiopia and Nigeria, quite a number of girls are married before the age of 15 and some girls are married as young as the age of 7.

Yemen is full of child brides. Roughly half of Yemeni girls are married before 18, some as young as eight.

In Saudi Arabia clerics have justified the marriage of girls as young as 9, with sanction from the judiciary. There are no laws defining the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, and girls as young as eight years of age can marry.

Egypt, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan, India, and the Middle East: In the rural villages of these countries many young girls are rarely allowed out of their homes unless it is to work in the fields or to get married.

These uneducated girls are often married at the young age of 11. Some families allow girls who are only 7 years old to marry. It is very unusual for a girl to reach the age of 16 and not be married.

In Afghanistan, it is believed that between 60 and 80 percent of marriages are forced marriages.

Muslims will argue that Aisha was 19 or 20 or whatever. If that’s the case, how come so many Muslims get it wrong?

Emulate your Prophet

* Saudi Arabia, August 2009. A Saudi Arabian father forced his 10-year-old daughter to return to her 80-year-old husband Sunday, after she was found hiding at the home of her aunt for 10 days. Arab News reported.

The young girl’s husband, who denies he is 80 despite family claims, accused the aunt of violating the terms of his marriage, allowed by Sharia Law.

”My marriage is not against Sharia. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he told a local newspaper.”

* Yemen, March 2010: Thousands of Yemeni women, their faces covered in religious veils, demonstrated outside the parliament on Sunday to oppose proposed legislation banning the marriage of girls under 17.

The protesters held up banners proclaiming "don't ban what Allah made permissible," or "stop violating Islamic sharia law in the name of rights and freedoms," .Answering calls by Muslim clerics who oppose the proposal on grounds it goes against Islamic sharia law, the protesters arrived in organized buses.

* Yemen, March 2010: Nujood Ali tells how at age 9 she was forced to marry a man three times her age, raped and beaten, then made Yemeni history by getting a divorce.

At around ages 9, her impoverished father -- who had more than a dozen children, agreed for her to marry a 30 year old.

She says he took her out of school, drove her with his family to a village, and raped her the first night of their marriage. "No matter how I screamed, no one came to help me. It hurt awfully, and I was all alone to face the pain,"

* Indonesia, March 2010: A fifth-grader only identified as AG, had to run away and sneak into school just to attend classes after her father forced her to marry a 60-year-old man...

AG was married by a cleric in front of their parents with an $11 dowry. She refused the marriage at first but their father beat her severely with a leather belt and punched her in the head.

* Yemen, March 2010: Elham Mahdi Shoi 12 dies from internal bleeding from intercourse, 3 days after her wedding to a 23 year old man.

The girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the a reporter that before her daughter lost consciousness, her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. "She looked like she was butchered," she said about her daughter's injuries.

* Egypt, March 2010: Former State governor, Yeriman Bakura, 65, has married a thirteen-year-old Egyptian girl.

The former governor, now a senator, paid a bride price of $100,000. He also divorced one of his wives to facilitate the marriage. In Islam a man is only permitted to have four wives.


Left: Yemeni girl Nujood Ali, married and divorced by aged 10.
Right: Rosham Kasem aged 8, with husband on her wedding day.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Rationalizing Sex Sins

How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes — and Promotes — ‘Sex Sins’

March 1, 2010- by Raymond Ibrahim

Almost anything is permissible if it can help advance the jihad.

Is it inconsistent for Muslim “holy warriors” to engage in voyeuristic acts of lasciviousness? Because would-be jihadists and martyrs have been known to frequent strip bars — such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan, whose “late-night jiggle-joint carousing stands at odds with the picture of a devout Muslim” — many Americans have concluded that such men cannot be “true” Muslims, leading to the ubiquitous conviction that they are “hijacking Islam.”
In fact, Islamists rely on several rationalizations — doctrines, even — that make “jiggle-joint carousing” consistent with Muslim piety. Considering that Islamic law permits sex slaves (Koran 4:3), who can be kept topless by their masters, and makes sex one of the highest paradisiacal rewards, this should come as no great surprise. However, to elaborate:
First, the doctrine of taqiyya allows Muslims residing among infidels to deceive the latter by, among other things, behaving like infidels, e.g., frequenting strip bars: “Taqiyya [deception], even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity — even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”
In conjunction, the overarching Muslim principle that necessity makes that which is forbidden permissible goes a long way in helping Islamists validate their libidinous desires: “It is ‘necessary’ for me to be at this strip club so infidels come to believe that I’m just a regular bloke and not a soldier of Allah.” Indeed, sometimes the mere gratification of sexual urges is deemed a “necessity” that makes the forbidden permissible in Islam, as in this historical anecdote:
After conquering the Banu Mustaliq tribe in 628, Muhammad’s men deemed it “necessary” to rape their captive women (citing their wives’ absence and untended desires). However, they also wanted to sell these women for a profit, which posed complications, as copulating with them risked impregnating them. So they rationalized that ‘azl(coitus interruptus) would solve the problem and asked Muhammad. The prophet went one step further and offered acosmic rationalization, dismissing coitus interruptus as unnecessary, “for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born” — that is, pullout or not, you cannot thwart Allah’s will, so don’t bother. (See here andhere for more ‘azl quotes.)
Muhammad also maintained that death in the jihad not only blots out all sins — including sexual ones, a la voyeurism — but it actually gratifies them:
The martyr is special to Allah. He is forgiven [of all sins] from the first drop of blood [that he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise, where he will be adorned in ornaments of faith. He will wed the ‘Aynhour [a.k.a. “voluptuous women”] and will not know the torments of the grave, and safeguards against the greater terror [hell]. … And he will copulate with 72 ‘Aynhour (see The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 143).
In light of this, how “un-Islamic” can it be for Islamists to gawk at nude, gyrating, infidel women — especially prior to “martyring” themselves in the jihad, which, as Muhammad said, blots out all their sins? This rationalization has precedents going back to the Middle Ages: Muslim groups like the Isma‘ilis created hidden “gardens of delight” swarming with voluptuous women, and, prior to sending their assassins on missions, would immerse them in these gardens, thereby giving these prototypical “suicide attackers” a foretaste of the sexual delights awaiting them in the afterlife. After this experience, the assassins would eagerly undertake any assignment simply to be “martyred” and return to the gardens of delight, which were based on “the description Muhammad gave of his paradise” (see Marco Polo’s 13th-century account).
Nor has this intersection between sex and violence subsided in the modern era. The Arabic satellite program Daring Question recently aired various clips of young jihadists giddily singing about their forthcoming deaths and subsequent sexual escapades in heaven. After documenting various anecdotes indicative of Islamist obsession with sex, human rights activist Magdi Khalil concluded that “absolutely everything [jihad, suicide operations, etc.] revolves around sex in heaven,” adding, “if you look at the whole of Islamic history, you come up with two words: sex and violence.”
Deceit, rationalizations, and a paradise that forgives the would-be martyr’s every sin — indeed, that satiates his hedonistic urges with 72 voluptuous women (which may only be raisins) — all help demonstrate how Muslims can be observant and simultaneously frequent strip clubs.
Yet there is one final explanation that requires an epistemic shift to appreciate fully: in Islam, legalism trumps morality, resulting in what Westerners may deem irreconcilable behavior among Muslims, that is, “hypocrisy.” As Daniel Pipes observed some three decades ago in his In the Path of God:
[There is] a basic contrast between the Christian and Islamic religions: the stress on ethics versus the stress on laws. Controls on sexual activity directly reflect this difference. The West restricts sex primarily by imbuing men and women with standards of morality. … Muslims, in contrast, depend on “external precautionary safeguards” [e.g., segregation, veiling] to restrain the sexes. … Rather than instill internalized ethical principles, Islam establishes physical boundaries to keep the sexes apart.
In this context, the problem is not Muslims frequenting strip clubs, but misplaced Western projections that assume religious piety is always synonymous with personal morality — a notion especially alien to legalistic Islamists whose entire epistemology begins and ends with the literal words of seventh-century Muhammad and his Koran.
And it is this slavishness that best explains Islamist behavior. For the same blind devotion to the literal mandates of Islam which encourages Islamists to lead lives of deceit also explains why Islamists are callous to human suffering, why they are desensitized to notions of human dignity and the cries of their raped victims, and, yes, why they cheerily forfeit their lives in exchange for a fleshy paradise. In all cases, Muhammad and his Allah said so — and that’s all that matters.
Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum, the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and a visiting lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...