Love Thy Neighbor, if he is a Muslim – Islam and Morality

Mumin Salih

 The Muslims’ view of morality

Muslims’ understanding of morality can be summarized in one sentence: If you do not fear Allah, there is nothing that can stop you from committing any crime. Therefore, morality is the natural result of the the fear of Allah, which keeps people disciplined. Those who do not believe in Allah, and those who do not fear him, can commit any sin when the circumstances are right. Consequently, non Muslims are not moral and  would commit crimes if they can get away with it. They only fear the penalty of the man made law which is easy to evade, but who can evade Allah?

Muslims attribute all their family and social values to Islam. Ask any Muslim of any age or gender “why you do not steal” and you are almost guaranteed to get an answer like: because of the teachings of our religion. This conviction is so deeply rooted in the Muslims’ minds that most of them do not comprehend that morality can exist outside Islam.  Such views help to condition the Muslims’ minds to despise the others and reject them.

It is important for westerners to understand this way of Islamic thinking  because it explains many of the Muslims’ social behavior. For example, Muslim men who seek sexual pleasure, automatically assume that non Muslim women are easier prey because they lack the Islamic morality deterrence that protects Muslim women. Sadly, very often they prove their point.

With signs of western decadence all around them, it is difficult to prove to Muslims otherwise. A Muslim cleric in Australia once described western women as uncovered meat that invites predators. The cleric was actually speaking the Muslims’ minds in general. The dissolute western family contrasts with the strongly bonded Muslim family where all members support and care for each other. Respect to parents and the elderly and social commitment towards the immediate as well as distant relatives are basic duties accepted and expected by all. In a Muslim family, parents often do not have to worry about retirement and pension because they know they can count on their children, or other close relatives, for full social and financial support.

The fear of Allah is called “takwa”, which means “to avoid confrontation with Allah”. “Takwa” and “fear of Allah” are frequently used expressions in the Quran and in the Arab societies. Whenever the issue of morality comes up in disputes, the Arabs say: Don’t you fear Allah? which is a reminder to the other party that he is on a collision course with Allah.
In general, the concept of morality in Muslims’ minds is mainly about being good to family and abstinence from extra marital sex. Things like theft, lies and cheating, although still acknowledged as moral values, come at the very end of their morality lists.

The Arabs’ Morality before Islam

Islam is mainly a reflection of the the seventh century Arabs’ culture. After the Islamic conquests in Arabia and the subsequent subjugation of the entire peninsula, the Arabs continued to live with their pre Islamic traditions and culture, which were largely unaltered by the new religion. Actually, many of those traditions were automatically incorporated in Islam, being an Arabic religion. A significant part of pre Islamic poetry celebrated the Arabs virtues like generosity, honesty, bravery of men, loyalty to family and tribe as well as female chastity. The Arabs cherished those virtues before and after Islam and they still do to this day. In sessions where the the Jahiliya (pre Islamic) poetry is being discussed, the Arabs are happy to speak for hours, with evident pride, about their ancestors’ virtues only to claim that its all because of Mohammed if the discussion moves on to Islam!

By crediting Islam for their morality, Muslims of all breeds offend their ancestors, because they imply that their ancestors had no, or low, morality.

Islam did introduce some changes to the Arabs‘ morality, but they were changes to the worse. The following are only examples:

1) Adoption was normally considered an issue of high morality but was abolished by Mohammed for a selfish and evil purpose.

2) Family and tribal loyalty was redefined because of the Islamic teachings which ordered Muslims to disown, or kill, their own close relatives if they become critical to Islam. Abu Bakr’s son was still a pagan at the time of the battle of Badr and deliberately stayed away from his Muslim father to avoid killing him. In later years, the son reminded the father with the incident, Abu Bakr’s response was: ‘I would not have hesitated to kill you for the sake of Allah and his prophet!‘. Abu Bakr’s response says it all about the morality of the pagans versus the morality of Muslims.

3) Sins like cheating and lies were made relative; Muslims can cheat or lie to non Muslims if they think that is helpful to them. Muslims are frequently caught shoplifting in western supermarkets and department stores, because they believe that stealing from the infidels is not a crime, or not a big crime. For the same reason most rape crimes in the west are currently committed by Muslims who believe raping infidel women is not that bad, unless they carry HIV. Muslim men regularly lie to western girls and lure them to accept relationships or marriages to obtain financial gains or visas. Young Arabs are known to do this with the blessings of their religious families.

4) Equality is non existent under Islamic law as the non Muslims and slaves are treated as inferior subjects to Muslims.

And the list can go on..

Just like in today’s secular societies, the pre Islamic Arabs denounced theft because they believed theft was morally wrong. For the same reason they denounced lies, cheating and committing adultery. After adopting Islam, the Arabs still refrained from committing any of the above crimes but now for a different reason- the fear of Allah. Some may argue that we don’t have to worry about the reason because at the end of the day the sins were not committed. Far from true, the people who avoid sins because they believe they are wrong are people with high morality who would never commit those sins under any circumstances. On the other hand people who avoid sins because they fear Allah are people with no morality; they only abide by the rules and would commit sins once the rules relaxed. Muslims do not steal as long as the rules of Islam say “do not steal” but when a cleric issues a fatwa that stealing is permitted, for example stealing from the infidels, they would steal. When a cleric issues a fatwa to inflict harm on the infidels, burn their churches or commit other crimes, the Muslim masses would do it all because of the fear of Allah. Like soldiers, they wouldn’t even dare to question the wisdom or morality of their orders. But Muslims do not always need a fatwa. Being Muslims they know the general pattern and  usually can make a good guess.

The Islamic Etiquette

You cannot expect high morality in a religion where the prophet orders his followers not to start the greetings if they meet the non Muslims on the road. Even when the Christians start the greetings, Muslims are not supposed to respond in kind. There was a time , before the current Islamic resurgence, when the Muslim and Christian Arabs treated each other in civilized ways. Nowadays, both mosques and madrasas are working hard to teach, or remind, Muslims with the proper Islamic protocols in dealing with the others. Ideally, Muslims should, discretely, avoid handshakes with the others, you never know what those hands were doing a few minutes earlier. The Arab Christians try to be polite and nice to Muslims and greet them in the Islamic way “assalmu alaikum”, meaning peace be upon you. The Muslims‘ etiquette is NOT to respond in kind by saying  “waalaikum assalam” meaning: and peace be upon you. Instead they should say “wassalamu ala mani ittaba al huda” meaning peace be upon those who follow the right path, which is Islam. The Muslims‘ response is evil and insinuates a declaration that there can be no peace with those Christians. The Christians often do not understand what is behind the Muslims‘ response and just accept it as a greeting. I also noticed that Muslims apply this etiquette to the Internet. They often start their debate with ex Muslims by that evil greeting, only difference this time they get an equally harsh response.

Another aspect of the Muslims’ social etiquette is their reaction when they hear of the death of a Christian, who was a neighbor or colleague. Instead of the usual response in such circumstances, which is saying “Allah yerahimahu” meaning may Allah forgive his sins, Muslims are told to remain silent or express their personal sadness in other words. Behind this response from the Muslims is a belief that Allah will never forgive the Christians for what they have done!

Conclusion
In terms of morality, Islam is inferior to other cultures. It does not teach morality, it teaches obedience and forces its followers to abide by the rules of Allah, which do not always agree with morality as we know it. As long as the law of Islam happens to be in harmony with morality, Muslims are well-disciplined, but only like wild animals in a cage; once released they become like unstoppable  wild beasts.

Through a loud speaker from a nearby mosque, an Imam was heard explaining the necessity of Islam:

“ if there are no after life punishments for sins, then we all would be out committing all kinds of sins”

http://www.faithfreedom.org/?p=43494

How ‘Religious Defamation’ Laws Would Ban Islam

As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.

To understand this, consider what “defamation”means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam.  Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions?  Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says “Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Quran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word infidel (or kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka’ba of Mecca—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them?  If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s wife, Aisha the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven?  If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam’s ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based “Islam Web” even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:
The OIC “deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad” and “called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths.”

But what about the “offensive and derogatory” depictions of Christianity in Islam’s core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, “to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths,” in this case, Christians?

Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film “insults religions” (note the inclusive plural) and called for “international legal regulations against attacks on whatpeople [not just Muslims] deem sacred.”
Well, what about the fact that Islam “insults religions”—including Judaism and all polytheistic religions? Should the West call for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam’s teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ’s divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?

Even Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a “global ban on insults targeting all” religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al Azhar is calling for “a U.N. resolution outlawing ‘insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam’ and other religions.” Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.
And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

SOURCE: FPM

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, is a widely published author on Islam, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Join him as he explores the “Intersection”—the pivotal but ignored point where Islam and Christianity meet—including by examining the latest on Christian persecution, translating important Arabic news that never reaches the West, and much more.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/how-religious-defamation-laws-would-ban-islam/

Muhammad and His Wives

A critical look at Mohammed’s relations with his wives

Mumin Salih

 Introduction

Muslims are aware of Mohammed’s numerous marriages and of his Allah-given privileges to have more wives than the rest of them. They believe that all of those marriages were for good causes like improving relations with certain tribes or helping the women concerned. Muslims also believe that most of Mohammed’s wives were not virgins and too old to be sexually attractive. None of these claims is true; they are purely fabricated excuses not supported by the Quran, sira (Mohammed’s biography) or Islamic history. Until I prepared this article, I believed at least one of Mohammed’s wives was too old for him. I am afraid this claim by Muslims is another big lie; none of Mohammed’s wives was too old and many of them were described as the ‘most beautiful’ in their tribes.

To keep the article within reasonable size, I deliberately avoided discussing the important issue of pedophile and child marriage as related to Aysha, which is discussed elsewhere.  Also, for the same reason I did not delve into Mohammed’s marriage to Zainab to which I dedicated an article a few years ago.

The issue of virginity comes frequently when Muslims discuss Mohammed’s marriages. Mohammed had an obsession with virginity and brought up this issue frequently in the Quran and hadith. What I find striking is that today’s Muslims, who should have learned otherwise from their own experience, they also believe that virginity is essential for a perfect sexual pleasure, just like Mohammed did.

An essential massage in Islam, which is emphasized in the Quran,  is that Mohammed is a model that every Muslim should emulate. The irony is that most of his marriages lie outside Islamic sharia. What is the point of being a model to the others if they are not allowed to copy him? Mohammed’s marriages and his relations with his wives are largely outside sharia in what is called god given privileges that only apply to Mohammed! Learning about those marriages is obviously of no use to the rest of Muslims but they still occupy a substantial proportion of the Quran, hadith and sira.

How many wives?

There is no definite answer, a fact that says a lot about Mohammed’s history. To simplify the subject, this article is based on the information given by Ibn Katheer in his book Al Kamel, which is one of those reliable Islamic references that Muslims call “ummahat al kutub” (meaning mothers of the books). According to Ibn Katheer Mohammed had nine wives when he died but had far more in his life.

1.Khadija

Mohammed’s first wife was a very rich woman who employed Mohammed to look after her business. At the time of marriage she was forty years old while Mohammed was twenty five. Mohammed had eight children from Khadija; the boys died early while the girls survived.

Mohammed did not marry any other woman in Khadija’s life. The conditioned Islamic minds use this piece of information to prove that Mohammed’s marriages had nothing to do with his lust for women but were for religious and political reasons. Their conditioned minds do not grasp the fact that Khadija was in charge of the household and Mohammed was employed by her, it was only natural that he could not even think of having another wife.

The Shia dispute the claim that Mohammed had eight children from Khadija and argue that apart from Fatima, all the children were from previous marriages. Indeed, it is difficult to accept that Mohammed had eight children from Khadija, who was in her forties, but not a single child from all those beautiful young wives he had later.

None of Mohammed’s wives had any children and none of them ever had a miscarriage or even became pregnant. Also there is nothing in the Islamic history that describes, or refers to, a “pregnant” Khadija. Muslims are not inquisitive about this thought provoking area of Mohammed’s biography and if you open the subject they would say “Allah did not want the prophet to have sons” which ends the debate before it starts.
Mohammed had a child, Ibrahim, from Maria who was not his wife, but a sex-slave  given to him as a gift from Egypt. She was described as ‘white’ and beautiful and Mohammed was evidently attracted to her. Maria became pregnant soon after arriving to Medina. Mohammed assumed he was the father of the baby but his jubilation was spoiled by the rumors concerning a relationship between Maria and the guard who escorted her from Egypt. Without even investigating the matter, Mohammed ordered Ali to kill the guard. Ali happened to look at the guy as he climbed a tree and noticed he was castrated, so decided not to kill him.
It is not easy, even for a doctor, to tell if a person is castrated by looking at him while climbing a tree. 
Besides, castration is not that straightforward procedure with guaranteed success. That guard was with Maria for many weeks, all the way from Egypt to Medina, and it is common sense to assume that he had sex with her, probably many times, on the way. Mohammed’s decision to kill the guard reflects his lack of confidence in his fertility and the much acclaimed sexual prowess. This lack of confidence was also evident when  he brought the baby to Aysha, hoping that she may spot some resemblance between him and the baby. To Mohammed’s disappointment Aysha remarked that the baby did not look like him at all.

It is doubtful, to say the least, that Ibrahim was Mohammed’s son and considering the doubts surrounding Khadija’s children, it is likely that Mohammed had no biological children at all. This raises a question about Mohammed’s fertility and sexuality. Erectile dysfunction, with or without infertility, could not be ruled out. It would also explain why he released a verse to forbid Muslims from marrying his wives after his death; perhaps he wanted to keep his little secret between him and his wives. To the Arabs, even today, being impotent or infertile is damaging to a man’s image. Mohammed’s claim that he had  the sexual potency of forty men (1) is just too ridiculous to believe and could have been used to mask something else.

2. Sawda

Sawda is portrayed in modern books of Islamic history as an OLD woman, and is the one usually used to prove that “most” of Mohammed’s wives were old. Until I prepared this article, I had the impression that she was in her sixties, so it was a surprise to me to learn that she was only in her early thirties at the time of marriage. When Mohammed died at the age of 63 years, Sawda was only 46 years old. This finding is just another example of the Islamic deception.

After Sawda, Mohammed soon married his favorite wife, the nine years old Aysha, and became a leader in Medina. He probably regretted his marriage to Sawda and decided to divorce her on the basis she was ‘too old’ for him! On hearing that, Sawda was shocked and came to Mohammed in tears and begged him to keep her. They agreed on a deal that Mohammed keeps her on condition she gives up her nights to Aysha! To his sick mind, Mohammed considered thirty years too old for him but nine years was just right! We can only conclude that Mohammed enjoyed sex with the nine years old Aysha more than with his adult wife.
To silence any criticism, he released a verse of approval: Q. 4:128 (And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them…)

3. Aysha

She was Abu Bakr’s daughter and was only six years when engaged to Mohammed. Wedding took place in Medina when she was nine years. When Mohammed died, Aysha was only a teenager of Eighteen years. Aysha was the only virgin of all Mohammed’s wives and she was very proud of it. Her virginity mattered to her and was considered by her as a reason why she was superior to the other wives. Obviously she learned from Mohammed, who too was obsessed with virginity, that virgins are the best (2), which explains why she narrated many hadiths that reflected her pride of her virginity. She claimed that Gabriel never visited Mohammed while in bed with any of the other wives because they were not pure, having slept with other men before Mohammed.

Muslims are proud that Islam is a religion of equality. In the Quran, Allah orders Muslims to treat their wives equally. If a man loves one of his wives more than the others, he should keep that love in his heart. Mohammed’s love to Aysha was no secret; every Muslim knew she was his favorite wife from the times of Medina to our time. How does that fit with Allah’s orders? How can Muslims abide by Allah’s rule to treat their wives equally and follow the example of Mohammed at the same time?

Aysha was the woman who narrated more hadiths than any other of mohammed’s wives. She was the source of those hadiths related to her sexual relation with Mohammed. Mohammed loved her more than the others but his death didn’t do her any justice as she had to spend her entire adult life in celibacy. Aysha had sex only as a child and once she reached adulthood she was widowed and prohibited, by a divine order, from ever getting married again.

Aysha had to live the rest of her life with the memories of being sexually abused as a child by an old man. Could that frustration explain some of her behavior like her fondness of those sexual hadiths?

4. Hafsa

She was Omar’s daughter. She died about fifty years after Mohammed, so she also must have been young at the time of marriage.

One day, Mohammed went to her house ( each of Mohammed’s wives had her own house and maids) while she was away visiting her parents. That day was Hafsa’s turn  to sleep with Mohammed. Hafsa was probably waiting for that day for a long time, considering the number of wives and concubines in Mohammed’s collection. Mohammed found nobody in the house except her maid, the beautiful ‘white’ Maria. Rather than waiting for his wife, Mohammed decided to have sex with the maid. Hafsa came back to find her husband in bed with beautiful Maria and went mad. She cried: “on my day and in my bed”. To calm her down, Mohammed promised not to have sex with Maria again, but Maria was too beautiful for Mohammed to keep his promise. As usual, the Quran came to the rescue with a verse that blamed Mohammed for accepting to abstain from Maria in order to keep his wives happy (Q. 66:1). In other words, the verse was a divine order to Mohammed to resume sex with his white beautiful maid.
The conditioned Muslims’ minds consider the above verse as a proof that the Quran was from Allah, not Mohammed. Their logic is how could Mohammed write a verse blaming himself! Those conditioned minds can not grasp the fact that the verse served Mohammed’s interests very well.

5. Um Salma

A widow of one of Mohammed’s followers. Apparently she was so attractive that leading Muslims like Abu Bakr and Omar proposed to her but she turned down all offers of marriage “because she would not find a man who was as good as her previous husband”. On hearing that, Mohammed decided to marry her because he was not only as good as her previous husband, but better! She must have been a young woman when she married Mohammed because she lived about fifty years after his death.

It looks like Mohammed was jealous of this woman’s love to her husband. In realistic terms, this woman was forced to love Mohammed and marry him and forced to admit that he was a better man than her deceased husband.

Mohammed made it an essential requirement of the Islamic faith that Muslims must love him more than they love their children, parents or themselves and the entire mankind put together. Without this degree of love, a Muslims’s faith would be fake. Those verses(3) and hadiths (4)(5)  that emphasize this mandatory love are the ones usually quoted by Imams in mosques to charge the Muslims masses to go to the streets to defend Mohammed against “offending” free speech.

Never in the history of mankind a leader succeeded to force his love on every one of his subjects except Mohammed. Thanks to the religion of submission, Mohammed did it and got away with it for fourteen hundred years!!

6. Zainab Bint Jahsh

She was Mohammed’s daughter in law, before he abolished adoption.

7. Juwayryia Bint Al Harith

The wife of the leader of the Jewish tribe Bani Al Mutalaq. Her husband was killed in the battle and Mohammed married her a few days later. Her story is a reminder of Safyia’s story (see below)
.
8. Safiya Bint Huyai

If everything else in Islam is good and Mohammed was otherwise perfect, the story of Mohammed’s marriage to this woman, on its own, is more than enough to make anyone leave Islam and conclude that Mohammed was a dangerous and psychopathic gang leader.

Mohammed invaded Khayber, the living place of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadeer,  at dawn and set fire to the tents and palm trees. Burning palm trees was considered evil practice and was generally unacceptable in Arabia, but Allah revealed a verse explaining to the Arabs that what Mohammed did was OK. The tribe was defeated quickly and badly. Most men were massacred and the leader of the tribe, Kenana, was arrested, tortured and killed as per Mohammed’s orders. When the battle was over, one of the Muslims asked Mohammed to allow him to take a woman, safyia, as a slave for himself, to which Mohammed agreed. Other Muslims became jealous and told Mohammed that the woman was actually the wife of Kenana and was very beautiful. Mohammed ordered his men to bring the woman to him and once he looked at her, he immediately covered her with his garment, indicating that he decided to have her. Later that day, Mohammed freed her and married her.

Safyia, together with another woman, were lead to Mohammed by Bilal. On the way, the the scene of the massacre was too much for the other woman to control herself and she cried loudly. Mohammed ordered his men to ‘take that evil woman away’. When Mohammed saw the beauty of Safyia he suddenly became civilized and looked at Bilal and  said: “What Bilal, is there no mercy in your heart?” blaming him for letting the women see the corpses! Without repentance or sense of shame, the Muslim scholars described the captured woman, who cried at the sight of the corpses, as evil but added PBUH after Mohammed’s name!
Safyia realized her fate as she lost her tribe and all power. When Mohammed offered her marriage she had to accept as the other option was slavery. Widows are required to wait over four months before getting married again, but Mohammed, the man with privileges, didn’t have to abide by his own rules and ordered the marriage that same night. Safyia was too traumatized to sleep with Mohammed that night, having lost her husband, brother and all the men of her tribe. The wedding was postponed for a few days to allow her time to recover from her shock.

After such a blood bath no human, or animal, would enjoy or even consider having sex, let alone with a woman who just witnessed the massacre of her entire family. Only severely deranged psychopaths do that and only dumb blind followers with dead conscience  justify it.

It wasn’t only Mohammed who was cruel to Safyia because modern Muslims are just as bad. They do not dispute any of the above details, but they claim they were evidence of Mohammed’s kindness because he elevated Safyia’s status from slave to  wife!! They also claim that Mohammed’s marriage to his Jewish wives was a good gesture that was supposed improve his relations with the Jews!

After virtually annihilating the tribes during the day, Mohammed and his followers had sex with the traumatized  Jewish widows to improve relations with Jews!
Only a Muslim minds can reach that level of “reasoning”.

9. Zainab Bint Khuzyma

10. Um Habiba

She was the widow of one of Mohammed’s followers who emigrated to Ethiopia and then converted to christianity. She died during the Umayyad’s dynasty, so she must have been a young girl at the time of marriage.

11. Maymuna

12. A woman from Bani Kilab

13. Ghaziya

This woman was advised by Mohammed’s other wives to say “I seek refuge with Allah from you” as he starts the foreplay. Mohammed divorced her immediately.

14. Asmaa Bin Numan

Mohammed discovered that she had white spots on her body, which he didn’t like. He divorced her immediately.

How kind and how civilized!

15. Bint Zabian

16. Kateela

Mohammed became ill and died without a chance to sleep with her. She apostatized  after his death!

17. Fatima Bint Sara’

18. Khawla Bint Huzayl

19. Layla Bint Khateem

Conclusion:
There is obvious lack of details about some of Mohammed’s wives. There are no records about some of them except for their names, while others’ names have been completely missing. It is fair to assume that some wives were dropped completely from the memory of history.

To be fair to the Muslim historians, the subject was not that simple. Mohammed had wives that he kept, wives that he divorced, women to whom he was engaged but never married, women that he married but never had the chance to have sex with. He also had women who offered themselves to him free of charge. These offers were a god given rights to Mohammed, but not other Muslims. In addition to this Mohammed had maids and sex slaves, like Maria, who often counted as a wife by many Muslims but she was not.
With such a complexity, probably Mohammed himself would have trouble in telling which of those women would be included under wives, right hand possessions or offered to him and what would be the grand total of his true wives.

———————————————————————-

References:

(1) Al Jami Al Kabeer by Sayuti 272

gabriel brought me a bowl, I ate from it and was given the sexual potency of 40 men

(2) Q.9:24

(3) Bukhari Volume 001, Book 002, Hadith Number 014.

Narated By Anas : The Prophet said “None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind.”

(4) Bukhari Volume 008, Book 078, Hadith Number 628.1

“No, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, (you will not have complete faith) till I am dearer to you than your own self.”

(5) Al Maugni by Al makdisi  468/7

“I recommend for you the virgins”

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/women-in-islam/muhammad-and-his-wifes/

Prophet Mohammed, the Banu Qurayza, Kashmir, and Mansuur Mohammed

Banu Qurayza were followers of 

Judaism and many hundreds 

of Jews were beheaded during

 the reign of Mohammed

The prophet of Islam is being re-vamped in the West and many Muslims desire to gloss over the harsh reality of their own prophet. In modern times Mohammed is the great family man despite marrying countless numbers of wives, getting divorced many times, having sex with concubines, and marrying a child. Yet the Mohammed of Arabia who ruled with an iron-fist and what his followers did to non-Muslims can be witnessed by events in the 7th century and right up to modern times.

The events that I refer to applies to the systematic annihilation of all male Jews who were over the age of puberty and the ongoing barbarity of radical Islam in modern day Somalia and Kashmir.

Therefore, the Banu Qurayza tribe who followed Judaism and the Muslim convert to Christianity in Somalia in modern times, Mansuur Mohammed; represent the reality and barbarity of Islam and the same applies to the destruction of Hinduism in Kashmir. In these three events, we can see what happened to ancient Christianity in Nubia, what awaited the Zoroastrians of Persia, what awaited the fate of Buddhists and 
Hindus in Afghanistan, and what awaited so many other faiths by the sword of Islam.

Before focusing on this issue, it is clear that other faiths have spread by the sword but unlike Islam, no other faith can claim that their prophet was responsible for such hatred or that laws were stated which supported jihad, dhimmitude, and enslavement. Also, while other faiths have looked deep “into their own personal demons” the same does not apply to the Islamic world.

It is clear that human failings like overt nationalism, the control of resources, feudalism, and many upheavals have happened in history. However, you can not equate the negatives within the Buddhist world or Christian world on the teachings of Buddha or Jesus. After all, both supported peace and stood up to the status quo by challenging people to focus on love, compassion, and a fair society.

However, the prophet of Islam is very different because in his world view it was clear that force and coercion were political and religious tools. Mohammed clearly supported the notion of Islamic jihad; stealing from the defeated enemy; enslaving people who did not accept dhimmitude; and laying the foundation of a brutal legal system which kills apostates, chops the hands of petty criminals, and stones people to death for adultery despite the fact that Mohammed did adultery with his concubines.

Often people like to clump all religions together, however, it doesn’t wash because not once did Buddha or Jesus kill nor did they desire political power or to marry countless number of women while claiming to be religious. On the contrary, Mohammed rewards Muslims for killing non-Muslims, by having virgins waiting for them when they sacrifice themselves during jihad.

Jesus, however, gave his own life in order that others can find salvation and of course you have no pre-conditions because people are free to reject him or accept him and only the afterlife will judge providing you have an afterlife?

In Islam this is seen to be weak and the God of Mohammed seeks control, power, to enforce dhimmitude, to kill in the name of Allah, and to install a legal system which favors Muslims over the inferior non-Muslims. 

I will now turn back to the 7th century and the lifetime of Mohammed because he set in motion a religion which would engulf many parts of the world and this applies to terror, war, dhimmitude and Islamic jihad.

Matthias Kuntzel, the author of Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the roots of 9/11 highlights on page 65 that “In 627 the Qurayza tribe was exterminated following a siege of Medina by the Meccans. Mohammed went to the marketplace in Medina and had graves dug there. Then the Jews were brought to him and beheaded at the gravesides – between 600 and 900 men in all. The executions lasted the whole day…..Most of the women and children were sold into slavery in Medina, the remainder in Syria and Najad.” (Johan Bouman, op. cit., p.86)

Therefore, the prophet of Islam supported the entire massacre of all Jewish males who followed the religion of Judaism and who were over puberty. Mohammed just sat back and watched this gruesome act and did nothing, apart from divide the spoils afterwards. This barbaric act took place under the rule of Mohammed in the 7th century and in this sense the beheading of Muslim apostates to Christianity in Somalia can be linked to the deeds of Mohammed.

Given this, Mansuur Mohammed who was beheaded in Somalia for being an apostate in the 21st century, joins the Islam of Mohammed and the 7th century because he met the same barbaric fate. Koranic prayers would have been recited while beheading the Banu Qurayza and the same applies to the al-Shabaab (al-Shabab) in Somalia who were reciting the Koran and shouting in joy while cutting the head off a Christian convert.

In my article called Killing Christians in Somalia, burning Bibles in Pakistan and stealth jihad. I stated that “…we have silence when Christians are being beheaded while Muslims recite the Koran and shout “Allah Akbar” while killing someone in such a brutal way”.

In the minds of Islamists who support the ways and deeds of Mohammed they are following in the footsteps of their bloodthirsty prophet. Therefore, the beheading of Mansuur Mohammed who converted from Islam to Christianity in Somalia is connected to the “same evil forces” which were unleashed by Muslims under Mohammed during his lifetime.

Mohammed clearly approved of the entire slaughter of all Jewish males over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza and he just sat back and watched the beheadings, one after one, into the hundreds, and eventually every Jewish male over puberty was killed for remaining loyal to Judaism.

The mind of Mohammed was clearly evil because at no time did he try to stop his followers from doing this brutal crime. In direct contrast to Jesus who stopped the prostitute from being killed by stoning to death we have the prophet of Islam who endorses such barbaric methods. Mohammed not only watched this brutal genocide of all male followers of Judaism over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza; for this was not enough because he also enslaved the Jewish women and children of this tribe and plundered all their wealth which was to be shared by the victorious Muslims.

Mohammed now “set in stone the brutality of Islam” and this applies to jihad, dhimmitude, jizya, killing apostates, stoning people to death for adultery (despite doing adultery himself), plundering the wealth of the vanquished and enabling the forces of evil to kill in the name of God.


Islamists all over the world, irrespective if they are in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or wherever, support the methodology of Mohammed and many desire to spread this faith and enforce dhimmitude on the people of the book or to massacre and destroy the foundations of Buddhism, Hinduism, and other faiths. At the same time you have Islamists within the democratic world, for example in America, Germany, India, the UK, and other nations, who desire to spread Islam and to weaken the foundations of democracy in order to Islamize the entire world.

In our own lifetime we have witnessed the Islamization of Kashmir “in silence “and a civilization which nurtured this land for thousands of years and the Hindus of this area may end up like the Buddhists and Hindus of Afghanistan? This applies to the complete Islamization of an area which once had a flourishing Hindu civilization but just like the destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism in Afghanistan by Islamic forces and then the destruction of all signs of this culture, the same fate awaits the Hindus of Kashmir if Islamists get their way.

If you check the website of http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html it states the following:

“Terrorism in Kashmir is an ideological struggle with specified political commitments which are fundamentalist and communal in character.

Terrorist violence is aimed at achieving the disengagement of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from India and its annexation to Pakistan. It is, the continuation of the Islamic fundamentalist struggle for the homeland of Pakistan which claims Jammu and Kashmir state on account of its Muslim majority character. 

The major dimension of the terrorist violence in Kashmir is the terrorists’ commitment to the extermination and subjugation of the Hindus in the state because Hindus do not subscribe to the idea of separation from India, nor do they expect to be governed by the authority of the state which derives its sanction from the law and precedent of Islam. Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) have always been in the forefront of the struggle against secessionism, communalism and fundamentalism. Hence this peace loving minority with a modern outlook became the main victim of terrorist violence. The strategies involved in the terrorists’ operation against the Hindus in Kashmir include: 

“The extermination of Hindus; subjecting Hindus to brutal torture to instill fear among them in order to achieve their submission; and to engineer a forced mass exodus of Hindus from the land of their ancestors and birth by way of issuing threatening letters, kidnappings and torture deaths on non-compliance of the terrorists’ dictates and ensure the destruction of the secular and pluralistic character of the socio-political fabric of the Kashmiri Society.”
If we go back to Arabia before Mohammed and during his early life then it is clear that Arabia was pluralistic and you had Christians, Jews, Pagans, and other faiths. However, during the lifetime of Mohammed the sword would be taken to Pagans and the followers of Judaism, once Mohammed obtained power. Also, just like the destruction of all non-Muslim faiths in Afghanistan (Buddhism, Hinduism, and others) by the followers of Islam the prophet of Islam had done the same and in time the same fate would await the Christians of Arabia.

Therefore, Mohammed had supported the entire destruction of Arab Paganism and Judaism, and in time the same fate would await Christians once complete Islamization had taken over all aspects of society. Modern Islamists are connected with this 7th century methodology because Islamists are doing the same in Kashmir with regards to the destruction of Hinduism.

The followers of Islam are also killing every single apostate that they can find in Somalia and all Christians converts face being beheaded or killed in other ways, while their children are being taken and converted to Islam. Buddhists in southern Thailand face the same Islamic methodology and many Buddhist priests have been killed alongside other Buddhists and moderate Muslims who are deemed to be apostates for supporting pluralism.

The mindset of the prophet of Islam is ongoing and lives on within the brutal legal system of Islamic Sharia law; the destruction of other faiths by the followers of Islam in Kashmir, southern Thailand, Somalia, and in other parts of the world; and the mindset of Mohammed lives on within every murder of an innocent Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or other in Pakistan.

After all, the followers of Islam desire to enforce dhimmitude on non-Muslims (Egypt, Iran, and others) or the eradication of non-Muslim faiths within an Islamic monoculture (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and others). Therefore, the beheadings of over 600 followers of Judaism in the lifetime of Mohammed and the beheading of the Christian convert, Mansuur Mohammed, in the 21st century are connected.

The same applies to the ongoing Islamization of Kashmir where a rich Hindu civilization is under threat from complete Islamization. Therefore, the Hindus of this region are like the Arab Pagans and followers of Judaism in the time of Mohammed because both face extermination and the destruction of their culture and all traces of Hindu architecture is under threat. However, while the world remembers the destruction of Buddhist symbols in Afghanistan not a murmur is being said in the international community about the plight of Hindus in Kashmir.

In truth, it is clear that Mohammed and the mindset of Islamists are the same and jihad and plunder goes hand in hand. The 7th century and 21st century are the same in the minds of Islamists because they desire power, control, dhimmitude, jizya, and so forth; liberals can fool themselves but history teaches us that Islam destroyed many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, and Zoroastrians societies. 

If leaders in democratic societies desire to ignore history and a living history of Islamization in Kashmir, Pakistan, southern Thailand, and in other parts of the world in the 21st century then the sword of Islam and stealth jihad will work hand in hand in order to obtain power in new lands.

Lee Jay Walker

 http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/persecution-by-islam/prophet-mohammed-the-banu-qurayza-kashmir-and-mansuur-mohammed/

ISLAM AND JAPAN : SOME FACTS ABOUT JAPAN - ARE THEY TRUE ?

They are indeed a very evolved race of people.

Have you ever read in the newspaper that a political leader or a prime minister from an Islamic nation has visited Japan?Have you ever come across news that the King of Iran or a Saudi Arabia prince has visited Japan? Japan, a Country keeping Islam at bay.Japan has put strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.The reasons are: 

• Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.  
• In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims. 
• There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan. 
• In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught. 
• One cannot import ‘Koran’ published in Arabic language. 
• According to data published by Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs Muslims, who need to follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese andcarry their religious rituals in their homes. 
• Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies of Islamic countries. 

• Japanese people are not attracted to Islam at all. 
• Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies. 
• Even today visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies. 
• In the majority of companies, it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job. 
• The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist and even in the era of globalization, they are not willing to change their Muslim laws. 

•  Muslims can not even think about getting a rented house in Japan. 

• If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighbor hood stays alert.

• No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic ‘Madarsa’ in Japanp) There is no personal (Sharia) law in Japan. 
• If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim then she is considered an outcast forever.

• According to Mr. Komico Yagi (Head of Department, Tokyo University) “There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it.” 

• Freelance journalist Mohammed Juber toured many Islamic countries after 9/11 including Japan. He found that the Japanese were confident that extremists could do no harm in Japan.

'Communal explanation to Assam violence is flawed'

Vicky Nanjappa
 

  Jaideep Saikia, noted terrorism and conflict analyst who has authored the book, Terror Sans Frontiers tells rediff.com's Vicky Nanjappa that the communal explanation -- that is being touted in certain circles amid the recent violence that has erupted in Assam's Bodoland Territorial Autonomous District -- is flawed.

In the interview, he points out that dispensation in both New Delhi and Dispur have turned a blind eye to the problem of illegal migration.

Is the current strife in Assam ethnic or communal?

It is quite clearly a conflict over land, between communities. Indeed, land stands right at the heart of almost all conflict in north-east India.

Perched cheek-by-jowl, tribal communities of differing hues have -- on punctuated occasions -- wrested for rights over land.

Immigrant Bengalis have fought the ethnic tribals in Tripura; Kukis have battled Nagas in Manipur and immigrant Muslims have clashed with the Bodos in Assam, as have the latter with the Santhal community of the state. Even a perfunctory assessment of the inconsistencies in the region cannot substantiate the convenient explanation about such conflicts being sired by religious considerations -- even when the Muslim community is involved.

The communal explanation -- that is being touted in certain circles amid the recent violence that has erupted in Assam's BTAD -- is flawed.

'Pakistani surrogates played a role in fuelling the tension'

 

 

The government has claimed that illegal immigration into Assam stopped long ago. If this is the case why has the violence erupted to such an extent today?

Illegal migration is continuing. Dispensations in both New Delhi and Dispur have turned a blind eye to the problem of illegal migration, perhaps because of political expedience.

But, the violence in BTAD is not a result of fresh migration from Bangladesh, but because a stray incident involving different communities triggered off long-standing animosities, primarily over land.

What according to you fuelled the violence and did agencies such as ISI and Bangladesh's Director General of Foreign Intelligence play a role in fuelling the tension?

The lynching of four former Bodo Liberation Tigers cadres in Joypur near Kokrajhar on the night of July 21, 2012 seems to have been the immediate provocation.

Pakistani surrogates -- according to reports -- played a role in fuelling the tension. But this was after the riots broke out. This was reportedly done by sending SMSs and MMSs all over India, thereby triggering an exodus of north-easterners from places such as Bengaluru and Hyderabad. But the hand of interest groups inside India cannot be discounted.

 

'New-found concern cutting across party lines is heartening'

 

 

 Does the DGFI continue to encourage the illegal influx and if yes how have they gained?

Lebensraum in the east has been a well grounded agenda for anti-India forces.

However, one aspect that must be comprehended is that almost all migration from Bangladesh is economic. It is the poorest of the poor that migrate to India.

The reason ranges from economic deprivation in the erstwhile East Pakistan to better opportunities in India. It would also be of import to note that global warming and the rising Bay of Bengal will flood 1/4th of Bangladesh. Inhabitants of the lost land will enter India and the influx would have increased manifold.

What roles have the governments of both BJP and Congress played in tackling illegal migration?

Unfortunately neither the BJP (when in office) nor Congress did much to rein in the situation.

As aforesaid, political expedience seems to be the driver for all political formations.

In all fairness it must be said that BJP has at least been raising the issue of illegal migration and NRC update etc, especially after the violence in BTAD. But, even Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi made a statement on August 30 that the NRC updation --perhaps the only way to resolve the illegal migration issue -- would be completed within the next three years. Now, this new-found concern cutting across party lines is heartening. One only hopes that a correct follow-through would take place.
The focus has primarily been on Kashmir. But you have written in detail about the threat the nation faces through these forces in Assam. Has the government and our agencies woken up to this threat or does Assam continue to be a ticking bomb?

The bomb is ticking. The government has to take active remedial measures, and without delay. The recent realisation by North Block mandarins that Pakistani surrogates were involved in the recent crisis is a starter.

'Demise of ethnic militancy in the region has activated Islamists'

 

Tell us more about the nexus between Islamic militancy and the demographic challenges in the north-east?

I make a distinction between ISLAMIC and ISLAMIST -- the latter being a classification that is erroneously seeking to utilise Islam as a means to further terror: I am quite clear that Islam does not promote terror. Indeed, I have caveated this aspect right in the beginning of my book Terror Sans Frontiers: Islamist Militancy in North East India that I penned almost a decade ago.

The fact that the age-old search for lebensraum in the east would witness an Islamist spill-over from Bangladesh was clear to me way back in 2002. 9/11 had happened and it was a matter of time before the Islamists sought newer pastures -- especially after Op Enduring Freedom and the partial de-Talibanisation of Afghanistan.

Bangladesh and the lower Assam districts provide both a gateway to the rest of India for operations and an after-action pull back area. But it must be said that unlike other states in India the Islamists were not engaging the establishment in the north-east. They did not want to attract attention.

As I wrote in my book, the Islamists are silent, not by the absence of activity but by the presence of non-activity. But, it seems that the demise of ethnic militancy in the region has activated them, albeit in a manner that we are presently witnessing.

Moreover, the loyalties of the illegal migrants from Bangladesh continue to be informed from across the border. The Assamisation process that certain scholars talk about is not taking place despite the fact that such migrants are taking on Assamese sounding names such as Raju and Mamoni.

Also, almost all social formations in the region have their own militias. The vanguards for the Islamists are being provided by the illegal migrants. The increased presence of illegal migrants from Bangladesh is witnessing the growth of Islamist militant groups in the region and even the MHA has recently drawn up a list of such groups.

'The agenda is to bleed India with a thousand cuts'

 

 

 As you have mentioned the MHA has recently come out with a list of Muslim Fundamentalist Organisations active in Assam and Manipur. There seems to be distinct similarities between the list you had appended in your book Terror Sans Frontiers almost a decade ago and the MHA list of today. Comments.

I do not have the faintest idea from where MHA culled the list from. I am certain that the ministry has better sources than I.

You say that the issue is about terrorism and not religion. Could you elaborate on this point? Also is there a danger that religion could become the focus in the days to come?

Terrorism is, first and foremost, a tactic that involves the threat and use of violence in order to achieve a political goal. The goal may be formulated in ideological or religious terms, but it invariably retains a political component.

Simply put, if there is no political motivation behind a terrorist attack, it can be said that terrorism is not involved. I have spelt this out in my eighth book, Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalization.

I am of the opinion that religion is being used by a new interest group to harness puritans among the faithful for diabolic action. The people who task the puritans are no religious zealots, but ones with a clear political agenda. The agenda is to bleed India with a thousand cuts. I hope and pray that this agenda in the land of Srimanta Sankardeva and Azan Pir can be frustrated.

 

 'Correct diplomatic pressure by New Delhi on Dhaka is needed'

 

  

Which are the strongest militant groups in the north-east today?

The NSCN (IM), UNLF and PLA (Manipur) continue to be the strongest militant organisations.

A regime change in Bangladesh is expected and Khaleda Zia is likely to return to power. How would that change the equations in the North East?

The BNP is generally considered to be the anti-thesis of Awami League, which is considered to be somewhat pro-India. The bright side is that Sheikh Hasina has already delivered to India on the issue of ULFA and NDFB to a considerable extent, and it is only a matter of speculation about how the fortunes of the north-east would change were Khaleda Zia to return to power.

Islamism -- the barrack politics of Bangladesh that sired BNP needs the cloak of Islam to retain power -- would certainly receive a fillip and the crackdown on the remaining north-east militants -- billeted in Bangladesh -- would witness demise.

How do you think this issue could be resolved?

Correct diplomatic pressure by New Delhi on Dhaka, even if it borders on coercion. Especially, as it is perfectly capable of it.

The Radicals Have spoken clearly on Assam. Is the Nation Hearing ?

Speaking on the Assam issue on 8th August 2012 , Mr.Asaduddin Owasi, the MP from Hyderabad belonging to MIM ( Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen) said

“Lastly, I warn the Central Government; I warn the hon. Members over here. ¦ (

Interruptions) If proper rehabilitation does not take place, you be ready for a third wave of radicalization among Muslim youth. ¦ (Interruptions) You are not bringing it to the notice. … (Interruptions) I am bringing it to your notice. … (Interruptions)” 

 

Full text of discussion in parliament can be looked at

 

http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Debates/uncorrecteddebate.aspx

 

Point # 1 that the nation must note is 

 

Mr.Owaisi is clear that the Muslims are one community irrespective of the country to which they belong. Therefore, even when the Bodos are actually fighting the Bangladeshi infiltrators ( which the state must be doing ), his sympathy lies with the Muslims over the Bodos. No matter to him that the Bodos belong to Bharat and the Muslims in question here are from Bangladesh. It also does not matter to him that Hindus also are languising in rehabilation camps.

 

Point # 2 :

 

He says that this will lead to the 3rd radicalization of the Muslims. I guess by this he means, after Ayodhya in 1992 and Gujarath in 2002. The history over the world shows that Muslims esp in India do not need any particular reason to get radicalized. Because of their concept of Jehad, the Ummah and Jannat, it is easy for the recruiters of Jehadis to get recruits by showcasing any problem across the world as an issue of Islam. For example, they recruited people over the Khalifa during Khilafat, on the Iraq issue when Saddam was attacked, they recruited when Osama was attacked and many many more such incidents which lead to recruitment and radicalization.

 

Will the country ask Mr.Owaisi what makes the Muslim youth so prone to radicalization ?  Why is it that the Hindu victims like the Kashmiri Pandits, the victims of partition, the Hindu victims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the family members of riot victims in so many parts across the country don’t get radicalized while it is so easy for the Muslims to get radicalized ?

 

Point # 3 -

 

As if taking the cue from Mr.Owaisi ( or orchestrated events by bigger powers that Owaisi), the Muslims took out protests in Hyderabad, Mumbai and other parts of the country which “suddenly” got violent. It is another matter that the “peaceful” protesters were armed with petrol bombs and other armaments.

As per reports, in Madhapur at Hyderabad, a goonda by name Momin with his gang has gone about threatening Assamese & others from North East to vacate Hyderabad before 20th August 2012 or face death. This is on the lines of the warnings given to the Pandits in Kashmir valley during the 90′s.

 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/article3774640.ece

http://eenadu.net/news/newsitem.aspx?item=panel&no=11 ( local news in Telugu)

 

Today’s reports suggest that Assamese in Bengaluru have also been asked to vacate.

Thousands of Hindus who hail from Assam and other parts of North East have evacuated these cities and are moving back to their home. Is this the security that the nation-state is going to give to its citizens ? The only source of support to the Assamese seem to be the swayamsevaks who are offering support and solace to them.

 

http://samvada.org/2012/news/rss-swayamsevaks-gathered-at-bangalore-railway-station-offering-full-security-to-north-east-indians/

 

Is the country going to be taken to ransom to the radicalization call and warnings of these goons. It must be remembered that whenever the state fails in its duty of protection, the people would be forced to take their own measures for protection of their folk.

 

Owaisi is a Parliamentarian who has sworn by the Indian constitution. What are the measures he is taking to arrest these radicals rather than succumbing to them ?  Is he a member of Parliament of only Muslims Or a Member of Parliament of India ?

 

Mr. Owaisi and his folk are clear. Is the nation willing to hear the import of these words and actions ?

 

Arise Bharat !

 

 http://arisebharat.com/2012/08/15/the-radicals-have-spoken-clearly-on-assam-is-the-nation-hearing/

Pre-meditated madness in Mumbai: An insider’s view

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S N Ganesh 
 

Watching the burning vehicles on television, the mind raced back to December 1992 when Muslims went on the rampage after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Then, as now, their strategy was broadly the same: protest violently, provoke, take a small incident and use it as a reason to make a point. When police try to control restive crowds by lathi-charge, and then firing when nothing works, say Muslims are being persecuted in India if a Muslim dies...  Actually, the police are mandated to maintain law and order. If they fail to control the mob they are blamed, if a Muslim dies in firing they are blamed. Either way, they bear the brunt of the dispute. This time, the Media was the target of focused Muslim anger. Three TV broadcasting vans were set on fire, media men and policemen roughed up, and the new glass façade of The Times of India building in VT (close to Azad Maidan, the venue of the protest) shattered. Muslims participating in Saturday’s [11 Aug] protest sent a clear message to the Media not to make any statement perceived as against their community or the cause it was espousing – alleged concern over the fate of the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar, and determination to keep the Bangladeshi infiltrators within the frontiers of India. This is reminiscent of the violence in Sholapur when American pastor Jerry Falwell called the Prophet a ‘terrorist’, with no repercussions anywhere in the Western world, in 2002. Thereafter, the Congress MP from that constituency rose and rose in the esteem of his party supremo, and is today the Union Home Minister. His statement on the recent Pune blasts was as awe-inspiring as his comments after the massive power blackout of 31 July, when three grids collapsed all over northern, eastern and north-eastern India. If he said anything of note after Saturday’s violence, it has failed to grab attention. The new Union Home Minister has clearly got the message that nothing must be said or done to annoy his party’s principal votebank. The perpetrators of violence also sent a message to the Mumbai Police not to take any tough measures when Muslims protest. Azad Maidan is just minutes away from Police Commissioner’s Office. Broadly, Muslims conveyed to the Congress leadership that for continued electoral support, it should not dare to take any action against Bangladeshi Muslims in Assam. They warned the Supreme Court not to pass any judgment that stops or inhibits Bangladeshi infiltration. The next Chief Justice of India is a co-religionist; perhaps they were telling him what they expect from the august court under his dispensation. So what actually happened last Saturday? As best as one can piece the information together, it seems that the Raza Academy, a cultural organisation, supported by the Sunni Jamait ul Ulema and Jamat e Raza-e-Mustafa, took permission to hold a meeting of 1500 persons at Mumbai's Azad Maidan, to protest against the recent riots in Assam and alleged attacks on Muslims in Myanmar. Then, armed with the permission, hundreds of activists sporting black badges converged at Azad Maidan and expressed concern over the ‘massacre’ of the Muslim community. Maulana Syed Moinuddin Ashraf, president of Jamia Qadriya Ashrafiya, demanded that the Central and state governments intervene to “protect the Muslims”. Conceding that Myanmar was an external problem, he alleged that Assam “reflects on the state of affairs of the country,” surely a blatant falsehood. When the protest turned violent – some claim 15,000, some say over 50,000 protestors turned up at the venue in contrast to the permission granted for just 1500, and policemen on the spot were a meager 800 – police were helpless. As the situation deteriorated, and Media and Policemen were made the target of mob ire, police fired in the air to disperse protesters. Television vans were torched by the well-prepared mob. As expected, the Raza Academy which organised the protest was quick to claim innocence and blame the violence on some unnamed radical elements. From the scale of the violence, it is obvious that it was pre-planned, and well-planned. Photographs reveal the extent of violence and the damage caused to the city. http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-pix-mumbai-protest-turns-violent-vehicles-torched/20120811.htm The police were rattled enough to force Mumbai Police Commissioner out on the streets in his headgear. But is it the role of the Chief to direct mob control; should he not stay in the control room and strategize, monitor, guide? In November 2008, Hemant Karkare made the same mistake and paid for it with his life. At the end of day, as the situation was brought under control, the toll was two dead (both rioters), 54 injured, of which an astonishing 45 were policemen. They were clearly the victims of targeted violence. One newspaper quoted a young constable as saying that the mob attacked him with sticks, helmets and stones. He reported seeing them tossing a policeman up several times. It was a bad day for the Police; newspaper pictures show many constables running to save their own lives. Media drew its lessons in proportion to its property in the city. The venerable Times of India did not mention that the rioters had damaged its building, and played down its reportage as compared to rival papers situated outside the city. Other papers with huge landed property also played safe. And why not? The Hindustan Times reported its senior photographer as saying that he heard an orator [at the Maidan] blaming the media for not giving adequate coverage to the plight of Muslims in Assam and Myanmar. Feeling something was amiss, they clicked pictures and left. Some minutes later, they were informed that an OB van was on fire. As the journalists ran towards Azad Maidan, a mob of about 400 people clashed with them; they were separated and each journalist was attacked by at least 25 men. Five or six photographers were beaten up; their cameras smashed and taken. Policemen were also targeted. As a man in the crowd begged a policeman for help, the beleaguered officer asked, ‘should I save your life or mine?’ After all, there are just 39,000 policemen for the whole of Mumbai, clearly inadequate to take on a motivated gathering of 50,000-odd protestors. Newspaper pictures clearly show some of the rioters with big stones in their hands – it was like a capsule of the stone-throwing incidents in Srinagar Valley last year. Worse, given the shoddy record of our human rights industry and our political leadership, one can expect that the policemen who fired and were responsible for the death of two rioters would be grilled like Gujarat policemen after the 2002 riots there, and those who took action during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots. What else can one expect from a regime whose Home Minister, R.R. Patil, was caught on camera with a Dawood Ibrahim aide? http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rr-patils-underworld-connections/131936-37.html Mumbai citizens don’t expect things to get better. Rioters and terrorists know that they are unlikely to pay for their crimes. After all, convictions in the 1993 Mumbai blasts are still pending with the Supreme Court since 2008; nothing is known of the fate of the 2003 Gateway of India blasts probe; trials in the 2006 train bombings are going on at snail’s pace; the 2011 multiple bombs in Opera House and Dadar are festering somewhere; while there is no progress in the Pune German Bakery bomb blast. Then there are the fresh Jungli Maharaj Road bomb blasts in Pune of 1 Aug 2012, the day Sushil Kumar Shinde was elevated as Union Home Minister. As one unclosed chapter of violence piles upon another festering sore, life goes on for the hapless denizens of the city – it is called the famed resilience of Mumbai. Congress MP Milind Deora garners the maximum number of votes from the Muslim areas of South Mumbai from where hail the rally organizers, the Raza Academy. We have not heard a peep out of him. Sources: Video: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/Mumbai-Protest-against-Assam-riots-turns-violent/videoshow/15448306.cms http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/assam-protests-in-mumbai-turn-violent-police-lathicharge-crowds-to-control-situation-253805?home&pfrom=home-lateststories http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Protest-against-Assam-riots-turns-violent-in-Mumbai/articleshow/15448262.cms http://m.timesofindia.com/city/ranchi/Youths-protesting-against-alleged-genocide-in-Myannar-ransack-shops-in-Ranchi/articleshow/15441019.cms http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_protests-turn-violent-in-mumbai-vehicles-set-on-fire_1726759 Source : http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2418