Books On Islam In India.

Every once in awhile, people encounter works of art or new knowledge which makes them pause, think and admire. One of the symptoms of such an encounter is when a person can't stop talking about it or literally lecturing friends about the profound effect of new knowledge and the anticipation of all such effects it may have on man's life. My first such encounter without doubt was when I borrowed a copy of Atlas Shrugged from one of my seniors. I couldn't contain myself, let alone telling my friends of how great the experience was. I was thrilled, exalted and found tears running down my cheeks in the college library out of all the places in the world. I obviously wouldn't say that I understood the whole book the first time around but even the inkling that such knowledge existed gave me great joy. Ever since, there have always been such pauses; the difference has only been in the intensity or the measurement of such pauses – but the essential principle of furthering human life was always present.

I bring all of this up only because I've been encountering such a phase since last night. I can't stop recommending a couple of books to all and any Indian who wants to protect a semblance of a civilized society which is at great stake today – from Islamic totalitarianism. However, there are many Muslims and non- Muslims around us who would like to challenge the facts itself and proclaim that Islam is a peaceful religion and that Prophet Muhammed is a great man. If you've gotten into an argument with any Muslim about the nature of Islam, you would notice that he will inevitably allege that any verse in the Quran which propagates violence against non-believers is read "out of context" or is taken from some sort of Zionist sites. The argument in most cases gets personal and name-calling is often resorted to. John David Lewis has written an excellent piece on one such onslaught he encountered. While one is debating the need to attack Islamist Iran, the Muslim stops his opponent and tells him that he does not know the nature of Islam or Islamic theology. According to his version, Islam is a peaceful creed and Prophet Muhammed was a virtuous man. To any objection you raise you will be told that you are quoting the passage out of context and misrepresenting a peaceful religion. If you tell him about the slaughter of Bani Quraidha tribe where 900 Jews were killed in broad daylight, he will teIl you that the Prophet only did it because the tribe engaged in mutiny by negotiating with the enemies. If you cite a verse that says do not take non-beleivers as friends, he will say that the Prophet only meant "do not take them as allies" and not "do not take them as friends". If you tell him the doctrine of Taqqiya -- the order that one can lie to further Islam -- he will tell you that only the Shia's engage in Taqqiya and that Sunnis don't. I for one am not prepared for a strident defense of Islamic jihad and Sharia law. From the material I have read, I understand that the Prophet killed non-Muslims if they refused conversion. I see Muslim women everyday wearing burqas which cover their body from head to toe. But no matter what objection you raise, you are always quoting the passage "out of context" and sometimes the even worse "You are not a Muslim so you don't know".

I think the same trend occurs in the global warming propaganda. Mainstream media is full of the "science" behind the global warming theories and how certain it is that we are going to die if we continue to progress. Such claims give it the semblance of genuine facts.

Although it's impossible to become a philosopher, climatologist and a scholar in Islamic theology in a specialized society, I think one needs to spend at least sometime evaluating these claims for one selfish reason only: self-defense. Our culture is full of nonsensical ideas and weeding such ideas out requires that one seek out facts that one has to process to ascertain the truth of such claims. One can do as John David Lewis did. "In answer," to an angry questioner Mr. Lewis writes, "I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam's violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one's religion has no basis in reality." On the issue of global warming, Yaron Brook does a great job.

Of course, if one finds a field to be of particular interest, he can delve into the issue. I think the real challenge is to identify, narrow down one's interests and then really nail those issues down. As for me, I have lived in India and had many, many Muslim friends as a kid. This documentary opened my eyes to Islamic totalitarianism and was a rude shock – to say at best. Ever since, I have been following people like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have been thinking about pursuing and investigating Islam and it has been quickly developing into a hobby of mine. I have decided that apart from studying Objectivism I would also like to study Islamic theology and history to the extent that I can.

Last night, after a few Google searches, I found this page which hosts free e-books on the nature of Islam. It piqued my attention because a few of the books which are offered are about the Jihad in India. Although our first Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru, was adamant that after the Muslim invasion, Hindus were treated properly and that the Mughal rulers were peaceful, there was a blood bath in India. Two of the authors I had wanted to read – K.S Lal and Seetha Ram Goel – were among the e-books. Here are a few I plan to read in the next couple of days:

• The Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel
  
• Indian Muslims – Who Are They by K.S. Lal
  
• The Legacy Of Muslim Rule in India by K.S Lal
  
• Muslim Slave System In Medieval India by K.S Lal
  

I think my real education in Islamic history will come from Scott Powell in his A First History For Adults which I plan to take in the next year. In the meantime, I am going to do what I can to further my values. I think these books should be compulsory reading to any Indian if he wishes to understand the Kashmir issue or the string of bombings in the name of Allah because such issues can be sanely understood only when one looks into the theory that's behind such atrocious acts: Islam.

I welcome any book or course suggestions for beginners in the study of Islam.

Pakistan restores Islamic law to pacify Swat valley.

Yet another event of Pakistan sucking up to the Taliban. Pakistan has decided to reimpose Islamic law in the Swat valley to take the steam off the ongoing Taliban uprising since 2007.

Here's an excerpt:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Pakistan agreed to introduce Islamic law in Swat valley and neighbouring areas of the northwest on Monday in a bid to take the steam out of a Taliban uprising raging since late 2007.

Taliban militants in Swat, once a tourist paradise, called a 10-day ceasefire the night before the talks, and on Saturday released a Chinese engineer kidnapped five months earlier as a gesture of goodwill. (.....!!)

"After successful negotiations ... all un-Islamic laws related to the judicial system, those against the Koran and Sunnah, would be subject to cancellation and considered null and void," said NWFP's Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain, referring to the holy book of Islam and the saying and teachings of the Prophet Mohammad.

They have destroyed more than 200 girls schools in a campaign against female education, and tens of thousands of people have fled their homes to escape the violence."


Any so-called practical effort to assuade the Taliban to take the "steam-off" by reimposing Islamic law in parts of Pakistan involves mammoth context-dropping and is filled with pragmatism. The Pakistan governments effort to placate to the Taliban is much like Chamberlain's claim -- "Hitler demands Czechoslovakia, if we give in, his demand will be satisfied. The result will be peace in our time."

Such a claim treats each demand on the perceptual level never looking the range of the moment and totally disregards the fact that any knowledge is contextual.

As Peikoff writes in Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand, "Mr Chamberlain treated Hitler's demand as an isolated fact to be dealt with an isolated response; to do this, he had to drop an immense amount of knowledge. He did not relate Hitler's demands to the knowledge already gained about the nature of Nazism; he did not ask for causes. He did not relate the demand to his knowledge of similar demands vioced by aggressor nations and even local bullies throughout history; he did not ask for principles. He did not relate his own policy to mankind's knowledge of the results of appeasments; despite ample indications, he did not ask whether his capitualation, besides satisfying Hitler, would also embolden him, increase his resources, hearten his allies, undermine his opponents, and thus acheive the opposite of its stated purpose. Chamberlain was not concerned with any aspect of a complex situation beyond the single point he chose to consider in isolation: that he would be removing Hitler's immediate frustration."

If we substituted the words Hitler with the Taliban, and Islam with Nazism, the man nailed the problem almost 20 years ago.

What a shame nobody was listening.

Religion Versus Valentines Day.

Valentines day is the day when everybody takes the time to appreciate the loved ones in their lives. Couples cuddle up together celebrating earthly love and the electric passion between them. On this day, the city has so much to offer. Many weeks in advance, the shops are filled with chocolates, cards and may other ways to say I love you.

However, the story that caught my eye this valentines day was the unequivocal stand of all the religions against the celebration of valentines day.


Here is the Hindu story in Bangalore.

Bangalore: Bangalore, whose name turned into a verb with globalization and 'bangalored' came to denote the free movement of jobs, is suddenly caught up in a very ugly mess.

An outfit called the Sri Ram Sene first pulled the caveman act on young women in a pub in Mangalore – not far from this city – dragging them by the hair, slapping and pushing them around. And now approaching Valentine's Day, the same group is threatening to forcibly "marry off" couples caught celebrating romance in Bangalore.

Women drinking beer in pubs, wearing 'tight jeans' as well as public displays of affection are against Indian culture, says the Sene. Its leader Pramod Mutalik wants to put a stop to all Western cultural imports.

And now they have consistently condemned the Valentines day--

The SRS would act along these lines:

Guys and girls exhibiting public display of affection on Valentine’s Day would be forced to tie the knot immediately by Sene activists. For that, five teams would be formed. They will roam around Bangalore with video cameras and if they find young couples dating, they will force them to wed on the spot.

“The couples will be taken to a sub-registrar’s office to solemnise the marriage’’ said T S Vasanth Kumar Bhavani, Sene’s Bangalore city president.

Mutalik’s claim is that Valentine’s Day is a ‘Christian practice’.

He recently said in an interview that he and his ‘strict followers of Hindu culture’ were very much against women wearing noodle straps and tight jeans.

Firstly, I wonder whoever gave him the notion that Valentines day is a Christian practice!

The Christian Post reports --

Teens, churches and Christian organizations are sending an alternative message of abstinence and purity on the most romantic day of the year, Valentine’s Day.Across the country, youths will make a public stand on their commitment to remain sexually pure until they are married on the Day of Purity, an annual event that coincides with Valentine’s Day. This is the fifth annual Day of Purity for youth.

“We live in a culture hostile to traditional values which has produced shocking statistics on the state of our youth,” said a statement on the Day of Purity Web site. “The Day of Purity is a day on which students can make a public demonstration of their commitment to remain sexually pure, in mind and actions.”

And the Muslim story, Saudi Arabia ofcourse, has banned all red items in gift shops and among florists yet again.

(CNN) -- Saudi Arabia has asked florists and gift shops to remove all red items until after Valentine's Day, calling the celebration of such a holiday a sin, local media reported Monday."As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration, especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women, " Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari, a scholar in Islamic studies, told the Saudi Gazette, an English-language newspaper......

Two years ago, a teenager was raped by seven men who found her alone with a man unrelated to her. The government sentenced the 19-year-old woman to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being in the company of a man who wasn't a family member or her husband. She was later pardoned. The seven rapists were sentenced to two to nine years in prison."

It would be unnecessary to point out the fact that it is not totally senseless for religions to take this stand given its views. Why? Here is an excerpt from a post by the editors of the The Undercurrent:

"Valentine’s Day is an inherently secular holiday. What it celebrates is not divine or platonic love, but earthly romance and passion.

The passion between lovers has always threatened the sway of religion. Religion requires humility, obedience, and self-denial—not exactly the traits exhibited by individuals enflamed by romantic devotion to their lovers. Perhaps this is why religion has always tended to regard sexual passion as a sin rather than a value to be cherished.In Saudi Arabia, Valentine’s Day is a threat because it focuses people on the passions of the here and now, rather than the empty promises of a religious after-life. A man dreaming of his lover’s lips is unlikely to be motivated to submit to Allah."

One of the other important lessons to learn from such bizarre events is that there should be a wall of Separation between religion and State. In the Hindu and the Christian societies religion merely takes the backseat and even when violence breaks out, the State protects the security of its citizens. On the contrary, when there is no such separation -- like in Saudi Arabia, the secular minorities are punished like the woman in the news item. Ayn Rand once said that the smallest minority on earth was the individual and applies appropriately here. Anytime an oppressive regime loots power in the name of God or in the name of the people, it is the individual who bear the brunt.

Update -- Outraged by an attack by right-wing Hindu militants on women emerging from a pub in Mangalore, activists in India have initiated a ‘Pink Chaddi’ (underwear) campaign in which they are sending pink panties to members of the Sri Ram Sena (Army of Lord Ram) on Valentines’ Day.

Is The World Going Nuts!!?

Is the world going nuts!!?

I think its a very pertinent question to ask given the global warming -- animal rights agenda, government intervention and the refusal to look Islamic totalitarianism in eye.

The civilized world has blamed Israel time and again for the atrocities that Palestine should be held responsible for.

Here is a news report that caught my eyes a few days ago --

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas vowed Monday to rearm in defiance of any Israeli and international efforts to prevent the Islamist militant group from replenishing its arsenal of rockets and other weapons after the Gaza war.

"Do whatever you want. Manufacturing the holy weapons is our mission and we know how to acquire weapons," Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas's armed wing, told a news conference.

Calls to rearm to use ceasefires only to rearm are not new to the Hamas. It's not in vogue anymore -- blaming Israel. Really. Israel should attack Palestine and mop up the totalitarian culture with full moral certainty and rectitude. No doubt about it.

Oh, and coming back to the world going nuts -- its just another testament that ideas can change the world -- for the better or worse.

Father Zarkaria Botros on "The Perverse Sexual Habits Of The Prophet.

Here's the second post in the series on the perverse sexual habits of the Prophet from Jihadwatch.

This being the continuation of Fr. Botros' examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, "No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”

Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s 'activities' with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

Cohost: “More!”

“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”

At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds!”

It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad lying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.

In India, We Stand Muted.

In India, we stand muted.

According to this news report

Patna, Jan 15 : The author of a book that reportedly questioned Islamic tenets has been arrested and charged with hurting the sentiments of the Muslim community, police said Thursday.

Mohammed Yasin Ahmad, author of the Urdu book "Islami Surah Ya Beimani Ka Panchnama", surrendered at the Pirbahore police station Wednesday night.

Ahmad's 154-page book stirred a controversy by questioning the 10 tenets of Islam and the functioning of the Khalifas.

On Monday, Maulana Kari Abdullah Bukhari, chief cleric of the Jama Masjid in Munger district, had complained about Ahmad and his wife Nilofer Yasin, who is the publisher of the book.

"The complainant told the police that there are objectionable references to Islam in the book," Patna Superintendent of Police Anwar Hussain said.


Islamists are attacking the most basic rights of man -- the right to speak and express their views on any any matter in general -- and Islam in particular. If we concede the right to free speech, the rest will be tragedy.

The Winning Habit.

[HT -- Atlasshrugs2000]

Israel’s Offensive In Gaza

The recent attacks by Israel in the Gaza strip have received much media coverage and stirred a lot of international figures into action. However, what we saw on television were not "just the facts" but loads of context dropping and countless hi-clarity pictures which told us the stories of endless Gaza residents who were in dire need of the basic necessities of life. With lightning speed (if not clarity), the civilized world has decided to blame Israel for all the casualties that are being inflicted in the Gaza strip. It is indeed sad that the mainstream media has decided to voluntarily blind itself to facts and principles. They have been condemned Israel – a country that upholds the individual rights of its citizens – and glorified rightless people living under a notorious government in Palestine.


Here are a few facts about the crisis that one clearly needs to analyze before one pronounces his judgment upon the issue.Hamas had contested in the elections in Gaza and won with an overwhelming majority of the two-thirds of the seats it contested. Hamas is also a terrorist organization whose central belief, in their own words is "nothing is loftier or deeper in nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims." When will this Jihad end? The Hamas Charter quotes Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

The civilized world's claim that a ceasefire should be negotiated has been tried previously. Given Hamas's direction, it should come of no surprise that Hamas was more than willing to break the ceasefire. Hamas had fired about 215 rockets during the six month "ceasefire" period -- aimed solely to kill civilians.

Hamas has also publicy declared that it WILL use the ceasefire only to recoup. In other words, there is no such thing as ending the aggression per se.



Given such a mess, I don't know how can anybody blame Israel for defending their civilians lives. They didn't ask for this either but what can any nation that upholds individual rights do when such fanatics -- Nazis or Islamists -- attack them with such moral certainty and rectitude? In my experience, people usually agree that a sovereign state has the right to protect the lives of its civilians but what usually seems out of place is the killing of innocent civilians (although they in fact did elected Hamas), in the hands of evil Israeli's. Lets take a step back and then answer some of these questions.


Should Israel be permitted to kill innocent civilians?

If somebody had to be blamed for the killing of civilians in Gaza -- it, without question, should be Hamas and the residents of Gaza themselves --who brought this onto themselves by electing a fanatical group. Hamas has always, as a rule tried to attack innocent civilians in Israel. What of Israel's children and civilians? Don't they qualify as civilians too? Even worse ,the Hamas has used kids as human shields and killed 40 out of its own citizens for aiding Israel. They have a long-standing habit of storing and launching its weapons from mosques and other civilian areas. It boasts about hiding its operatives in places like hospitals. Israel on the other hand, phones people and drops leaflets to warn civilians of the coming attacks -- at the cost of element of surprise. Isn't it a little fanatical to blame Israel for all the killings of civilians -- on both sides of the border?

All this said, I don't think any civilian of any aggressor country can claim a right to live. What if, for instance, Israel thought it were a better strategic position and chose to drop an atom bomb or something? Would that render Israel immoral? I wouldn't think so. A government, elected or not, is an agent of its citizens in the international sphere -- whether anyone likes it or not. This is why one should have read his books or watched TV and found out exactly what his government deserves. What else is the point of the political process? If it were a problem in their own country, we could simply say, "Let them suffer in their own misery." But when the people's agent harms a civilized country -- its people cant say --"We claim no responsibility for the terror attack by our agent on your land." It is senseless.

Aren't there more Palestinian casualties -- that is not proportionate damage!

Israel's casualties are much lesser than compared to the Palestinians simply because Israel considers it important to care about its citizens life -- which is the government's job in the first place. Hence, they have warning systems and bunkers for their citizens protection. On the other hand, Palestinians store weapons in civilian areas, use civilians as human shields and kill their own citizens for helping the Israeli army. Does it come as a surprise that the number of civilian casualties differ in such great number!!?

It is important for the media and the civilized to understand who is the thug here. Hamas is the thug because it is the true, authentic representative of Islam and is acting solely on the teachings of the Koran and other religious edicts. As historian John Lewis highlighted recently at FacingJihad, the threat of Islamic totalitarianism is against every country that upholds the individual rights of its citizens. It is these individual rights that the Islamists seek to destroy. If we wish to put up a fights againsts the Islamists, the civilized world should support Israel in an unqualified manner to keep us from reverting back to the Dark Ages -- to a time where honor killing is commonplace and where the good becomes the exception instead of the rule.

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet" from Jihad Watch

Here is another a very striking and awesome post by JihadWatch (again!)


Life TV’s Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed the focal question of the show: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

He opened the show by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, which evaluated the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded that many of these so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title.

Being that this is the first of several episodes devoted to examining the concepts of morality and prophethood (with the notion that the former reinforces the latter), the theme for this particular episode was “purity” (tahara): "Was Muhammad a 'pure' man?"—in this context, a question concerning his sexual mores (or lack thereof).

After the preliminaries, Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet I follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.

First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim's wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50). In fact, Father Botros has carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad.

Botros said that was only normal: according to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her. According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

The co-host, rather abruptly, interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

Botros dropped his face in his hands and mumbled, “So you still insist we discuss that?” The co-host was adamant, saying it was for Muslims’ own good to know everything.

Thus Botros, after profusely apologizing to his Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, declared: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books! If Muslims don't like it, they should go and burn these books.”

The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him."

Another curious hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

Said the co-host: “Surely there’s more?”

Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls"...

[Stay tuned for part II of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]

A Journalist Who Can Attest To The Cause Of Terror.

Here's an interesting post by JihadWatch about the story of a journalist, Sean Langan who "sneaked into Pakistan last spring to interview top Taliban "Khalifa" Siraj Haqqani and Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. He was going to ask Osama Bin Laden's deputy if they had a nuclear bomb."

Instead, they did what we would most likely expect them do -- kidnapped them, locked them up and released him only after he said one of his son's name was Gabriel, the angel that narrated the Koran from Allah to Muhammad I am guessing.

And what's more, Taliban is clearly operating in Pakistan given the journalist account. At this point, given such overwhelming evidence, it would be nuts to claim Pakistan didn't know shit about the Mumbai blasts.

Langan, at the terror camp heard an ex-Pakistani minister on the BBC one day denying Al Qaeda operated camps inside the country.

"I had to turn up the radio to hear his denial over the sound of gunfire from all the training camps," Langan said, grinning.

I must admit, after the rude shock, I find JihadWatch very informative and awesome regarding Islamic totalitarianism.

Just Wondering..

Just wondering if there is such a thing as moderate Islam. In the same breath, is there such a thing as peaceful Nazism? Even if followers of a particular philosophy do not see the danger of the philosophy -- it does not change the fundamentals of the philosophy one bit. For instance, if I irresponsibly write software that kills people, they have the right to call me vicious -- there is no is-ought gap.

Keeps me wondering whether any Muslim who has ever read the Koran evades the teachings or..i don't know, I just cannot cannot fathom how anybody could evade at such mammoth proportions by deciding to not look at the obvious.

I find it hard to believe there are 1.5 million people on Earth to whome I have to cut some slack if I cut some slack to one Muslim . Numbers don't matter -- imagine cutting a little slack to the Nazis -- there were far too many at one point in history.

The Mumbai Attack.

Although I dont have the time to write much, I could not resist posting about the Mumbai's terror attacks. JihadWatch has an excellent post echoing exactly my views on the ghastly event.

Here's the full post --

“Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism specialist with the Swedish National Defense College, said there are ‘very strong suspicions’ that the coordinated Mumbai attacks have a link to al-Qaida....” -- from this news article

Yes, yes. We have all heard the solemn discussions about whether or not the "Deccan Mujahideen" is a new group, or an old one, or a made-up group, and whether or not there is a "link" to Al Qaeda. And this kind of focusing on the trivial, the nearly insignificant, goes on and on and on, when the real point is this: these are Muslims. They may be from within India. Or not. They may be from Pakistan. Or not. They may have been encouraged or funded by Arab Muslims. Or not. They may have links to Al Qaeda. Or not.

What matters is that they are Muslims attacking, attempting to kill, non-Muslims, in order to obtain their aims. And their aims are to weaken -- in this particular case -- India. And they wish to weaken India in order to make the government of India appease Muslims and meet their demands, whether in Kashmir or in India proper. And once those demands, whatever they may be, are met, other demands from Muslims will be made, and will have to be met, for there is no end to this. The Jihad does not have an end point. There is not a finite goal, but rather an endless series of goals, with each success feeding triumphalism.

The only time this has not happened, in the past 1350 years, is when Muslims have been stopped, either by superior military power -- as outside of Poitiers, or when the Ottomans were repulsed twice at the Gates of Vienna, or by the clear understanding that the Infidels were overwhelmingly more powerful, militarily and economically. That, through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, was clear to all concerned.

And though Muslims on their own, because of inshallah-fatalism, could never create advanced economies, they have become rich from oil (and gas), a manna that only an accident of geology could provide. Now they enjoy trillions of dollars which, while allowing many of them lives of incredible luxury and decadence beyond anything the Western world has experienced, also helps to fund the Jihad by paying for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, propaganda, and campaigns of Daw'a. What's more, at the same time, and quite independently, the Western world, having forgotten its own historical experience of Islam, and its elites, political and media, having lost the ability to heed its real scholars and their cassandra warnings, instead listened to the espositos, the armstrongs, the assorted MESA-Nostra defenders-of-the-faith-and-fatah-of-Islam, and allowed into the Western midst millions of Muslims. They did this without realizing that they brought with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, an alien and a hostile creed, one that flatly contradicts the principles -- all the principles -- of advanced Western societies.

These trillions in oil revenues, and these millions of Muslims who in an act of civilizational near-criminal negligence, have been permitted to settle deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, explain the threat of Jihad on a global scale today.

And there is no need to waste valuable time on the radio or television pondering ponderously whether the attackers are domestic or foreign, whether they are connected to Al-Qaeda or not. That may of some interest in helping to round this particular group up. But if too much time is spent on such matters, it distracts from the pedagogic task at hand: to explain to listeners and viewers that the key element here is Islam. It is Muslims pursuing, as they have a duty to pursue, Jihad. In this particular case they have chosen to do so using terrorism, but all around us other instruments, more effective because far less attention-getting, are being used toward the same goal, the same end: the removal of all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- everywhere.

That's why, when any "terrorism expert" -- some are good, some are not so good, some are idiotic -- proceeds to enjoy his time on the air discussing endlessly what this group should be called, what other groups it is linked to, what its "cause" is -- it's a case of missing-the-pointness that, at this point in the history of the world, is downright dangerous.

I just wish the Indian government had half the number of balls JihadWatch does.

Monumental Cowardice.

Here's another Islamo maniac cowardly report --

"..men on motorcycles attacked 15 girls and teachers with acid.

The men squirted the acid from water bottles onto three groups of students and teachers walking to school Wednesday, principal Mehmood Qaderi said. Some of the girls have burns only on their school uniforms but others will have scars on their faces.

One teenager still cannot open her eyes after being hit in the face with acid."

Jihad Watch reports that "those wearing the full-length burqa to cover themselves had been left untouched."

For some hints to who commited such a ghastly act lets look at the recent past when Taliban was in power. Consider this --

"Girls were banned from schools under the rule of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamist regime that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Women were only allowed to leave the house wearing a body-hiding burqa and accompanied by a male family member.

Arsonists have repeatedly attacked girls' schools and gunmen killed two students walking outside a girls' school in central Logar province last year. UNICEF says there were 236 school-related attacks in Afghanistan in 2007. The Afghan government has also accused the Taliban of attacking schools in an attempt to force teenage boys into the Islamic militia."

Yet again, for the millionth time we have another instance of cowardly Muslim believers doing exactly what the Koran tells them to. Whether the Taliban did it or some other manic did it -- the one thing we cannot do is call these attacks "unislamic" like the Afghan government would have us believe. Islam explicitly believes that men are superior to women and extols women as righteous if they are subservient and obedient to their husbands. I guess education instills in women exactly the opposite.

The only ray of hope to be optimistic about is the voice of the Afghan girl, Shamsia, undergoing treatment for the burns said from her bed at Afghanistan's main military hospital in Kabul, "I'll continue my schooling even if they try to kill me. I won't stop going to school".

It's these brave voices I wish to cheer for.

Islam: What The West Needs To Know.

It's been awhile since I've seen things when my mind went blank. It's been awhile since my last void. It's come to me now -- at 1 am in the morning with a documentary. It's titled, "Islam: What The West Needs To Know." I cannot begin to tell you how much I recommend the documentary. By all reason, its fair to say one should be scared given the current scenario of the Islamic movement -- especially after considering its history.

Honestly speaking, I had never taken institutes such as Jihad Watch very seriously. I knew that Islam was posing as a threat to free speech but I didn't not see the larger picture. I did not see that they were out to take control of my life -- free speech was just the beginning. They want to take control of my life under serious, traditional Sharia law. They are out there preaching in their mosques and in their jihad training centers that freedom is evil -- that the cause of all good is evil. They are busy preaching that my mother and sister should be covered from head to toe -- or even could be taken as concubines if we choose not to believe in Islam. We should be relegated to a second class status paying ransom for our meager, brutish existence. I swear, in the name of the best within me, I am not lying or exaggerating one bit. This is what Islam has been preaching for the past 14 centuries, and is willing to in the next 14 centuries. Just for a minute consider that fatwa's against writers, painters have become a commonplace and more than 12000 attacks have occurred after 9/11.

Allegedly, Muslims are also allowed to lie when they are furthering the cause of Islam. The end justifies the means. I mean it is very moral for a Muslim intellectual to be dishonest when saying that Islam is a peaceful religion. The Koran, not just permits it, but glorifies such dishonesty. But all the Western intellectuals have decided to deal with such a dangerous threat explicitly by blindness. We have become a World full of cowards. We have become hypocrites -- such deep hypocrites that we don't have the balls to stand up for freedom but see no qualms in indulging ourselves with products of the free market. Shame on us! Shame on the politicians! Shame on the universities for such cowardice and hypocrisy.

This documentary is a must watch. It's going to scare the living hell out of you -- but it has to be watched for freedom to be defended. So be it.

Here's the trailer -- the full length video can be found at the link I've provided above --

Free Speech Forum Pisses Off Audience Members.

This is disgusting.

Allegedly, the members of the audience stormed out of a panel discussion hosted by the American University's Objectivists' free speech forum. The forum sought to discuss the nature of free speech and how totalitarian Islam was a threat to free speech.

An excerpt from the news report --

"While the focus of the forum was free speech, most of the audience disapproval came from the panelists' methods of addressing Islam.

Daniel Pipes, columnist for the New York Sun and director of the Middle East forum, a think tank that defines and promotes American interests in the Middle East, warned about the dangers of 'soft jihad,' such as the creation of same-sex-only swimming pools, as well as Western governments such as Great Britain's that allowed immigrants to practice polygamy. "

Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, a non-profit think tank that promotes Objectivism, said during the discussion that Western governments were not protecting their citizens' rights to free speech and used the example of booksellers that were afraid to sell Rose's newspaper with the cartoons with Muhammad depicted in them because they were afraid of their stores being bombed, attacked or boycotted.

Brook also warned of the increasing problems of self-censorship and the desire for journalists, citizens and lawmakers to be excessively politically correct.

"It's surprising to me that we even have to have this discussion [about free speech] in the U.S.," he said. "Free speech is one of the main things that the U.S. gave this civilization, not free speech 'as long as you don't offend anyone.' The government's role is to protect our right to offend."

Flemming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper that commissioned the series of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in 2005, said during the forum that laws that prohibit certain types of speech like Holocaust denial laws and the current trend to ban anti-Islam speech should be abolished.

"You shouldn't criminalize opinions, even the most stupid," he said.

Sabrina Bahir, a School of International Service alumna, said she thought the things that the panelists said about Muslims were polarizing and imbalanced.

"The allegation of how totalitarianism is only exclusive to Islam and that there isn't totalitarian Judaism or Christianity I thought was very absurd," she said. "You just have to look back in history. There are 1.5 million Muslims on this earth and you can't clump them together in the same group."" (Bold Added)

This news report almost made me sick in my stomach. Imagine having such awesome panelists discussing stuff like free speech and then imagine a bunch of dicks and idiots walking out of a rational discussion and then having the audacity to scorn moral righteousness. What the fuck!!?

Apparently, Sabrina Bahir thinks that since there were 1.5 million Muslims on earth we can’t clump them together. Really? Ask them whether or not all the 1.5 million Muslims followed the Koran as a guide to their life and then talk of “clumping” them. Ask them whether or not Islam upholds the life of Muhammad as the best life any person could have. Ask them did Muhammad not personally slay hundreds of people and marry a girl named Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage at 9. These are their beliefs – the ones they not just respect, but revere – their guide to modern life. Given such a mess, I don’t understand how on earth can such a religion claim to be peaceful and right respecting.

Consider some translations of the Koran –

As translated by Yusuf Ali of the Muslim Student Association

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (Koran, 4.34)

Al-Ghazali, a central figure in the allegedly non-violent Sufi wing of Islam:

[O]ne must go on jihad at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . .


But Sabrina Bahir thinks we can’t "clump" them into the same group when this is what Islam stands for. Although its true that anything taken on faith has to be violent, including Christianity (link), an enlightenment happened in Christianity. I mean nobody sees a Christian jihad today. I am sure that no Christian would walk around doing his own version of jihad because Jesus asked somebody to kill infidels. It just pisses me off that there are so many people like this female who go around making statements – without even having a hint of what they are talking about. Let’s make no mistake about Islam. If facts do matter, then such passages cannot be ignored. There is no way Islam can be peaceful – precisely because it is inherently violent and because it doesn’t give a rats ass about rights. How many more attacks and fatwa’s on painters and authors do we need to see to make the point clearer?

But again, is it evidence we are concerned about?


HT: John David Lewis at Principles in Practice.