• Blog Stats

    • 153,272 Visitors
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,075 other followers

  • Google Translator

    http://www.google.com/ig/adde?moduleurl=translatemypage.xml&source=imag

  • FaceBook

  • Islamic Terror Attacks

  • Meta

  • iPaper Embed

  • Calendar

    November 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Authors Of Blog

  • Monthly Archives

Wealthy Muslim married men’s sex tourism. Virgins only.


APR
15
2013
Wealthy Muslim married men’s sex tourism. Virgins only.
Islam, Prostitution by Taslima Nasreen
Have you ever heard of ‘one month wives’ sex tourism?

Muslim men from the Middle East and Africa come to India to buy ‘one month wives’ for sex. Poor Muslim families pressurize their underage teen daughters to consummate a forced marriage to middle-aged men, much older than their fathers, who pay for them to be their wives for a few weeks. The wedding certificate comes with a divorce certificate that fixes the terms of the divorce at the end of the groom’s holiday.

It is nothing but pure prostitution in the name of marriages.

Girls and women are commodities.

Poor families do not deny the contract marriages because they do not have money to pay dowry for their daughters.

They prefer to collect money through their daughters’ one-month contract ‘marriages’ to fund their daughters’ real marriages.

They have to pay dowry to the real grooms for making their daughters real wives cum slaves. Girls have to do all the household chores of their husbands’ families and bear and rear their children. These girls are used as sex slaves in both marriages, fake or real, illegal or legal, temporary or permanent.

And those wealthy married Muslim men with kids! They know they will have sex as much as they want with virgin girls in paradise.

But they do not like to wait for that, they turn Earth into paradise. They rape temporary virgin girls whom they get through temporary marriages.

They make Allah a witness of their marriages, temporary and permanent. Allah allows polygamy. Allah is the protector.
 Tags: Sex slaves, Sex tourism

… Please Appreciate All Women in Your Life “HER” ….


The woman in your life…very well expressed…  

Tomorrow you may get a working woman, but you should marry her with these facts as well.

Here is a girl, who is as much educated as you are;

Who is earning almost as much as you do;

One, who has dreams and aspirations just as you have because she is as human as you are;

One, who has never entered the kitchen in her life just like you or your Sister haven’t,

as she was busy in studies and competing in a system that gives no special

concession to girls for their culinary achievements One,

 who has lived and loved her parents & brothers & sisters,

almost as much as you do for 20-25 years of her life;

 One, who has bravely agreed to leave behind all that,

her home, people who love her, to adopt your home,

your family, your ways and even your family,

name One,

who is somehow expected to be a master-chef from day #1,

 while you sleep oblivious to her predicament in her new circumstances,

environment and that kitchen One,

who is expected to make the tea, first thing in the morning and cook food at the end of the day,

 even if she is as tired as you are,

 maybe more, and yet never ever expected to complain;

to be a servant, a cook, a mother,

a wife,

even if she doesn’t want to;

and is learning just like you are as to what you want from her;

and is clumsy and sloppy at times and knows that you won’t like it if she is too demanding,

 or if she learns faster than you;

 One, who has her own set of friends,

 and that includes boys and even men at her workplace too,

 those, who she knows from school days and yet is willing to put all that

on the back-burners to avoid your irrational jealousy,

unnecessary competition and your inherent insecurities;

Yes,

 she can drink and dance just as well as you can,

 but won’t, simply Because you won’t like it,

even though you say otherwise One,

who can be late from work once in a while when deadlines, just like yours,

are to be met;

One, who is doing her level best and wants to make this most important,

relationship in her entire life a grand success,

 if you just help her some and trust her;

One, who just wants one thing from you,

as you are the only one she knows in your entire house – your unstinted support,

your sensitivities and most importantly –

– your understanding, or love,

 if you may call it.

But not many guys understand this…

… Please appreciate All Women in Your Life “HER” ….

During their invasion of India


“During their invasion of India, Muslim Mujahedeen destroyed the temple of the Hindu god, Rama, and built in its place their Babri Mosque in Ayodhya city.

According to the Belgian historian, Konreraad Elst, “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century were, for the Hindus, a pure struggle of life and death.

Entire cities were burnt down and the population massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) built his own hills made of Hindus skulls.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between the year 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).

The American historian, Will Durant, states, “The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without, or multiplying within.” The contemporary Indian philosopher,

Swami Vivekananda, describes Islamic invasions as “Think of what… Mohammad did to the world, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism!

Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed,” and, “Their watchword is:

There is one God, and Mohammad is his Prophet. Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith: at a moment’s notice, every man or woman who does not exactly believe in that must be killed;

everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism!”

A quotation from my new book, “The Child-Bride and the Old Man of Arabia”.

A volunteer proofreader, Darlene Karnz Enderby wrote, I “just love” reading this book!! Its hard to put down!! So “very” interesting….

Another volunteer proofreader, “You surely have utilized the gifts and talents God gave you with your impeccable writing and creative style.The pages of the chapters that you sent me reveal your vast knowledge of Islam and the Koranically and Islamic scholarly sanctioned evils therein.

You captured the essence of genuine Islam, which is without a doubt pure evil, as you reflected it’s devastation on the tormented lives of very young girls who are today sexually, physically, and mentally abused by Islam’s adherents, Muslims.

All people of the West would benefit greatly if they read it. Quoting directly from the Koran and from Islamic scholars gave all the more validity to the fact that Islam is, again I say, pure evil. I suspect many people will find this book a good investment of time.” K. M. K.

I am looking for an American classic publisher. If you can suggest one or two publishing companies that would be open to publish a book as this please contact me through my personal emails racheljoshuarehma@yahoo.ca or racheljoshuarehma@gmail.com

THIGHING OF FEMALE CHILDREN In Islam


From the Book of Dr. Thomas Ahmed

titled “The Child-Bride and the Old Man of Arabia“.ON FEMALE CHILDREN In Cult of Islam

There is an evil practice among the Arabs called “Mufakhazat Alzigaar” which could be translated as thighing of children. I know there is no word in English called thighing.

Thigh is the part in humans between the hip and the knee. The nearest evil practice to thighing in English would be child molesting.

However, thighing is more than child molesting. It is done by an adult man to a female child. Now let us see how it is practiced on a female child and who began that evil practice.

According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia the Muhammad began to practice thighing on A’isha when she was six years old until she reached nine years (Fatwa No. 31409).

The hadith which we quoted earlier mentioned that the Muhammad started having real sex with A’isha when she reached nine.

Therefore, Muslim scholars collectively agreed that the girl would become an adult as soon as she reached nine. Nonetheless, the Shari’a allowed the man to marry a six years old girl.

“Narrated A’isha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Mohammad and my girl friends also used to play with me.

When Allah’s Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Mohamad would call them to join and play with me” (Sahih Bukhari 8:7:151, Fateh Al-Bari, Vol.13, p. 143).

“The Mohamad wrote the (marriage contract) with A’isha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith no. 89).

According to the fatwa Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, A’isha when she was six due to her small age.

However, the fatwa said that when she was six he used to put his penis between her thighs and rub it gently because he did not want to harm her.

Imagine a man of fifty four years of age bringing a six years old female child and removing her clothes and putting his erected penis between her thighs and rubbing it on them and that still they called it ‘he did not want to harm her’.

How more harm a grown up man could do to a female child than showing her his penis and stripping her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her thighs?

Of course the evil person who would do such an evil to a female child would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body.

Moreover, if the person was such a sexually pervert pedophile he would not stop at ejaculating on her thighs but he would go more than that and rape the child before she become an adult and that is what Muhammad had done to A’isha when she reached nine.

Thighing was practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries but it was practiced more in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Those were the two countries which were notoriously known for that evil practice.

It was very common to see a man of seventy or eighty years of age marrying a female child of eight or ten years.

Recently an eighty years old Saudi man married a ten years old girl. On the wedding night the child’s privates bleed until they took her to the hospital.

Another recent case was of a Yemen man who raped his child bride until she died. Those were just a hand pick up from thousands of rapes of female children taking place every year on the pretension of marriages…

Sheikh Fiz bin Hamadan decided to marry the little Indian girl Iffat Khan and practice thighing on her until she reaches nine years old.

Iffat was almost eight years old. She was seven years and eleven months old. She did not know what sex is…

A quotation from my new book, “The Child-Bride and the Old Man of Arabia”.

Darlene Karnz Enderby wrote, I “just love” reading this book!! Its hard to put down!! So “very” interesting….

To All My Friends. I have written the above quoted book on Social Injustice and Abuse of Female-children and Women. It is titled “The Child-Bride and the Old Man of Arabia”.

FATE OF SLAVES From Mecca to Sindh to North India


from M. A. Khan’s book,Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery“. The part discusses employment of slaves in 1) Construction, 2) Army, 3) Royal Factories, 4) Palaces, 5) Households and Agricultural farms. Those, who think Islam showed great generosity to slaves by giving opportunities to take position in the army, should read this part (Part 1, Part 8).

FATE OF SLAVES From Sindh to North India

When Cult of Terror’s called Islam and Thug Muhammad died in 632, he had left behind a few thousand dedicated Muslim converts, who mainly engaged in raiding and plundering for making a living as well as for expanding the Muslim territory. This rather small band of Muslim warriors embarked on a stunning mission of conquest bringing vast territories of the world under their sway within a short time. In the process, they enslaved great multitude of the vanquished infidels, a large majority of whom involuntarily became Muslim.

Upon entering Sindh with only 6,000 Arab soldiers, Qasim had enslaved approximately 300,000 Indian infidels in three years. Similarly, Musa (698–712) had enslaved 300,000 Blacks and Berbers in North Africa. The early community of Muslims in Sindh consisted of a larger number of slave Muslims and a much smaller number of their Arab masters. Combined together, they formed the administrative machinery of the new Islamic state. Running such an enterprise needed a large amount of manpower in that non-technological era. Consequently, large numbers of these infidels, turned Muslims through enslavement, had to be engaged in many kinds of activities—as sex-slaves to the expansion of the military.

In India, there was no occupation in which the slaves of Firoz Shah were not employed,’ noted medieval chronicle Masalik.

[1] This was the case under all Muslim rulers, not only in India, but also everywhere else. In Southeast Asia under the Muslim rule, slaves were also engaged in almost every conceivable function.’

[2] Indeed, almost entire work-force in Islamic Southeast Asia consisted of slaves as already noted.

Employment in building and construction: One major task Muslim invaders and rulers undertook in conquered lands was the construction of outstanding buildings for mosques, minarets, monuments and palaces. These were intended for declaring the might and glory of Islam, overshadowing the achievements of the native infidels. According to Chachnama, Qasim, informing of the building initiatives undertaken by him in Sindh, wrote to Hajjaj, ‘…the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed.

Instead of idol temples, mosques and other places of worships have been built, pulpits have been erected…’

[3] Qutbuddin Aibak had started construction of the impressive Qwat-ul-Islam (might of Islam) mosque in Delhi as early as 1192, more than a decade before establishing Muslim rule in India (1206). According to Ibn Battutah, the site of the Qwat-ul-Islam mosque ‘was formerly occupied by an idol temple, and was converted into a mosque on the conquest of the city.’

[4] Aibak started the construction of the magnificent Qutb Minar—a minaret for announcing the Islamic call to prayers—in Delhi in 1199. The Qutb Minar ‘has no parallel in the land of Islam,’ wrote eyewitness Battutah.

[5] The undertaking of these huge ventures in India, ahead of establishing a firm foothold for Islam, affirms that the declaration of the might and glory of Islam was an urgent and focal mission of the conquest. To undermine and degrade the achievements of the infidels further, materials from destroyed temples, churches, synagogues etc. were used in the construction of Islamic structures. A Persian inscription on the Qwat-ul-Islam mosque testifies that materials from twenty-seven destroyed Hindu and Jain temples were used in its construction.

[6] Similar materials were used in the construction of Qutb Minar, about which, writes Prof. Habibullah, ‘the sculptured figures (of Hindu gods, goddesses etc.) on the stones being either defaced or concealed by turning them upside down.’

[7] Muslim invaders of India started with the building of such magnificent mosques, minarets, citadels, and mausoleums of their religious significance; to these, they later added outstanding palaces and other buildings across India.

Their constructions were often completed in double-quick time. In excessive enthusiasm, Barani informs us that a palace could be built in two to three days and a citadel in two weeks during Sultan Alauddin Khilji. Although an exaggeration, it nonetheless tells us that a large number of people, invariably slaves, were employed in these works of great endeavor; and they had to work under tremendous pressure to complete those ventures in the quickest of time in that non-technological era.

It is little wonder then that Sultan Alauddin had accumulated 70,000 slaves, who worked continuously in buildings. Qwat-ul-Islam mosque and Qutb Minar were projects of great endeavor, since materials from destroyed temples had to be dismantled with great care for reusing them. Nizami records that the temples were demolished using elephants, each of which could haul a stone, for which 500 men would be needed. Much of the delicate work, however, was done by human hands and a large number of slaves must have been employed.

[8] Furthermore, there was little respite in building new cities, palaces and religious structures. Many often, after a new Sultan ascended the throne—happened frequently because of ceaseless uprisings and intrigues, which so characterized the Islamic rule in India—he would construct a new city and palace in order to leave an enduring legacy of his own. Abandoning Iltutmish’s old city, Sultan Ghiysuddin Balban (r. 1265–85) built the famous Qasr-i-Lal (Red Fort) in Delhi. Likewise, Kaiqubab built the city of Kilughari. Battutah testifies that ‘It is their custom that the king’s palace is deserted on his death… and his successor builds a new palace for himself.’

[9] He noted of Delhi that it was ‘the largest city in the entire Muslim Orient,’ made up of four contiguous cities, built by different sultans.[10]

Moreover, congested cities, with no modern sewage and garbage management systems, used to get dirty and uninhabitable quickly and a new city used to be built to replace it. Battutah and Babur recorded the destruction of old cities because of moisture, which necessitated shifting to a new city where everything was clean and tidy.

Hindus, enslaved in large numbers, were engaged in cleaning up the dirt and in constructing new cities for the largely city-dwelling Muslims. As already cited, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq had assembled 180,000 slaves for his services.

Of these, a contingent of masons and builders with 12,000 slaves may have been engaged in stone-cutting alone, estimates Lal. Emperor Babur recorded that ‘[only] 680 men worked daily on my buildings in Agra…; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily on my building in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gwalior and Kuli (Aligarh). In the same way there were numberless artisans and workmen of every sort in Hindustan.’

[11] Throughout Islamic rule, Muslim rulers of India built great mosques, monuments, mausoleums, citadels, palaces and cities as well as repaired them. Indisputably, the greatest Muslim achievements in India were the great architectural monuments; their glares draw numerous visitors to India from around world even today.

And it is the great multitude of enslaved Indians, who supplied unconditional labor as well as skills at all levels of their construction, with Muslim masters on watch with whips (Korrah) in their hands.

A similar pattern in building palaces, monuments and cities of exquisite stature existed in other parts of the Islamic world.

In Morocco, previous rulers had built great capital cities in Fez, Rabat and Marrakesh with stunning palaces and monuments. When Sultan Moulay Ismail captured power in 1672, he decided to build a new imperial city at Meknes, which was to surpass the scale and grandeur of all great cities in the world.

He ordered to pull down all houses and edifices clearing a huge area for building a stunning palace, whose walls stretched many miles. The palace compound was to feature various interlocking palaces and chambers extending in endless succession across the hills and valleys around Meknes.

There were to be vast courtyards and colonnaded galleries, green-tiled mosques and pleasure gardens. He (the sultan) ordered the building of a huge Moorish harem, as well as stables and armories, fountains, pools and follies.’

[12] Sultan Moulay Ismail had wished to build a palatial city greater than that of King Louis XIV at Versailles, the greatest palace in Europe. In reality, he much outdid the Versailles palace. A British entourage, led by Commodore Charles Stewart, on a diplomatic mission to sign a peace treaty with Sultan Moulay Ismail and to free the English captives, visited the palace; they found it far larger than any building in Europe.

Even the greatest and most opulent palace of King Louis XIV was much tinier. The most stunning edifice was the al-Mansur palace, which stood 150-feet high and was ‘surmounted by twenty pavilions decorated with glazed green tiles.’

[13] The sultan’s palace was built exclusively by European slaves, aided by bands of local criminals. The palace was four miles in circumference and its walls were twenty-five feet thick. According to Windus, ‘‘30,000 men and 10,000 mules were employed everyday in the building of the palace.’’ Every morning the sultan would appear to oversee the construction and give idea for the days work.

Slaves would work meticulously to finish the allotted work in time. As soon as he finished one project, he would start another.

The scale of the building project was so huge that ‘‘Never had such a similar palace been seen under any government, Arab or foreign, pagan or Muslim,’’ wrote Moroccan historian ez-Zayyani. Some 12,000 soldiers were needed to guard the ramparts alone

.[14] There was no respite in the building activity in Sultan Moulay Ismail’s palace. Rarely satisfied with finished buildings, he would order their demolition for rebuilding all over.

In order to keep his slaves busy, he would order them to demolish twelve miles of the palace wall for their reconstruction at the same place. When inquired about this, the sultan replied, ‘‘I have a bag full of rats (slaves); unless I keep that bag stirring, they would eat their way through.’’

[15] Sultan Moulay Ismail’s successor Moulay Abdallah was as cruel as his father. In order to subject his slaves to hard labor and keep them busy, he ordered the stunning palace buildings built by his father—”the pride and joys of Meknes”—be razed down and reconstructed by his European slaves.

And he took sadistic joy at the suffering and even death of his slaves while they worked. while the slaves were working,’’ wrote Frenchman Adrian de Manault, ‘‘one of his pleasures was to put a great number of them at the foot of the wall which were about to collapse, and watch them be buried alive under the rubble.’’ He treated his slaves in ‘‘a most grievous and cruel manner,’’ wrote Pellow.

[16] Engagement in the army: Another major enterprise, in which, slaves were employed in large numbers was the Muslim army. Musa in North Africa had drafted 30,000 slaves into the military service. Late in the eighteenth century, Sultan Moulay Ismaili had a 250,000-strong army of black slaves.

Muslim slave armies, 50,000 to 250,000 strong, were normal in Morocco, Egypt and Persia.

The dreaded Ottoman Janissary Regiment that brought down Constantinople in 1453 consisted exclusively of slave soldiers. Qutbuddin Aibak, the first sultan of Delhi, was a slave of Sultan Muhammad Ghauri. The sultans of Delhi until 1290 were all slaves. Their army also consisted mostly of slaves, imported from foreign lands.

Many Muslim and non-Muslim historians and commentators have sought to sell this policy of employing the slaves in the armed forces as an ennobling and liberating act on the part of Muslim rulers.

This noble exercise, they argue, enabled slaves to reach the highest rank in the military; they even became rulers. It is true that many slaves rose to the top in the military; and some, through cliques and intrigues, even rose to the position of rulers. But this, for Muslim rulers, was never a gesture of their generosity.

Instead, it was, for them, a necessity to continue the conquest for their own interest: for expanding their kingdoms and for acquiring more plunder, slaves and revenues from the vanquished. It also became a tool for continued brutality, mass-slaughter and enslavement of the infidels.

Every slave, who happened to reach the height of power, paved the way for the brutalization and destruction of tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Every slave, who became a normal soldier, destroyed a few to many innocent lives.

After capturing Debal in 712 with 6,000 Arab warriors, Qasim could not take his conquest further without expanding the army. Hence, after taking a city, he had to take time to consolidate power and expand the military, for which, some of the enslaved were unconditionally drafted in.

[17] Once the military power improved, he could send forward a new expedition while keeping the already-conquered territories secure.

He made about half-a-dozen major expeditions after arriving in Sindh and gradually his army swelled to 50,000 soldiers. A part of the new recruits came from enslaved Indians. ‘Kingship is the army and the army is the kingship,’ wrote Barani, implying the central importance of a powerful army in the plunderous Muslim rule and conquest.

The engagement of slaves in the army, therefore, was not a favor by Muslim rulers to the enslaved, but quite the opposite. It was not a generous act of liberation and elevation of slaves by Muslim rulers; it was a compulsion for their own good fortune.

Most of all, joining the Muslim army was not a free choice for slaves, but a compulsion. And every slave drafted into the army paved the way for the destruction and brutalization of the lives of scores of innocent non-Muslims, normally their co religionists of the yesteryear.

After suffering reverses in the battle of Tours (France) in 732, Islamic conquests became somewhat subdued. The Jihadi spirit of the Muslim army was probably dwindling. With vast territories conquered and huge wealth accumulated, the Arab and Persian soldiers had probably lost their zest for engaging in further bloodletting wars, which risked their lives. This time, the North African black and Berber slaves formed the bulk of the Muslim army that continued Jihadi expeditions in Europe.

On the eastern borders of the Islamdom, Muslim rulers found another people, the Turks, with an unceasing zeal for wars and bloodbath. The Abbasid caliphs, especially Caliph al-Mutasim (833–42), started drafting the Turks in the army in large numbers, replacing the lackadaisical Arabs and Persians. Most of these Turks were enslaved in wars.

They were also imported at young age as Dewshirme-style tributes and trained for serving in the army. This trend continued under subsequent caliphs, making Turks the major force in the army; the supremacy of the Arabs and Persians in the military was dismantled.

Some of these powerful Turk commanders later revolted against the caliphs and declared their independence. The first independent Turk dynasty was established in Egypt in 868. On the eastern front of Islamdom, there arose a Turk slave ruler, named Alptigin—a purchased slave of Persian (Samanid dynasty) King Ahmad bin Ismail (d. 907) of Transoxiana, Khurasan and Bukhara. For his military excellence, Alptigin was appointed in the charge of 500 villages and about 2000 slaves by the Samanid governor Abdul Malik (954–61). Alptigin later became an independent chief in Ghazni. He purchased another Turkish slave, named Subuktigin, who, after Alptigin’s death, prevailed in acquiring power. Subuktigin ‘made frequent raids into Hind in the prosecution of holy wars,’ wrote al-Utbi. However, it was the son of Subuktigin, Sultan Mahmud Ghazni, who launched devastating holy wars against the infidels of India.

About one-and-half centuries later, another band of slave sultans, the Afghan Ghaurivids, launched the final blow to India’s sovereignty, establishing the Muslim sultanate in Delhi. Qutbuddin Aibak, Sultan Ghauri’s Turkish slave turned military commander, became the first sultan of Delhi.

The Delhi sultans used to maintain an army, consisting mainly of slaves of foreign origin during the early period. Slaves from various foreign nationalities—Turks, Persians, Seljuqs, Oghus (Iraqi Turkmen), Afghans and Khiljis—were purchased in large number and drafted into the Ghaznivid and Ghaurid army. Black slaves, purchased from Abyssinia, became the dominant force in the army of Sultana Raziyah (r. 1236–40), the daughter of Sultan Iltutmish.

When the Khilji dynasty (1290–1320), the first non-slave rulers in India, came to power—the Indians, enslaved and forcibly converted to Islam, started appearing in the army, much to the annoyance of orthodox Muslims, who detested the inclusion of the lowly Indians into the armed forces.

But the Mongols had been attacking India’s northwest frontier at this time. The Sultan needed a powerful army, which necessitated the inclusion of slave Muslims of Indian origin. Moreover, the Khiljis had captured power by ousting the Turks, who had been raising constant revolts.

Hence, the Khiljis could not employ the Turks heavily in the army because of the loyalty issue. Later on, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq (r. 1351–88), sensing an impending invasion by the Islamized Mongols (which, indeed, came in 1398 with Timur’s barbaric assaults), needed to assemble a large army. As a result, the Hindus were allowed to be drafted into the Muslim army for the first time in India.

Similar Muslim opposition against the employment of the conquered infidels turned Muslims into the army also existed elsewhere. In Egypt, the native Coptic Christians, who converted to Islam, were not included into the army for a long time.

Role of Indian soldiers: In the army, the Indian soldiers (mostly converted slaves), known as paiks, were normally engaged in lower ranks. They belonged to the infantry. They were drawn from slaves captured in expeditions or obtained as tributes;

Some Hindus also joined the army at later stages to secure a livelihood. The paiks performed all kinds of sundry jobs, such as looking after the horses and elephants; they were engaged in personal services of the higher-ranked cavalrymen.

Muslim sultans and emperors in India kept a huge army; and in the reign of Akbar, ‘A Mogul army in the field had on the average two or three servants for each fighting man,’ notes Moreland.

[18] Naturally, numerous slaves were engaged in the army in different capacities during later periods. When on a military campaign, the paiks cleared jungles and prepared roads for the marching army. When halted or arrived at the destination, they set up camps and fixed tents—sometimes on lands, as much as 12,546 yards in circumference, records Amir Khasrau.

[19] In the battle-field, the paiks were stationed at the front line on foot to absorb the initial assaults. They could not escape from the frontal onslaught, because, horses were on their left and right… and behind (them), were the elephants so that not one of them can run away,’ writes Alqalqashindi in Subh-ul-Asha. Portuguese official Duarte Barbosa (1518) records in his eyewitness account, ‘‘(paiks) carry swords and daggers, bows and arrows. They are right good archers and their bows are long like those of England…

They are mostly Hindus.’’ Some Indian-origin slave soldiers (converted Muslims)—such as Malik Kafur, Malik Naik, Sarang Khan, Bahadur Nahar, Shaikha Khokhar, and Mallu Khans et al.—also rose to positions of power through their military valor and loyalty to the sultans.

[20] In general, Indian slaves in the army did all kinds of sundry jobs, including acting as servants to soldiers, caretakers of the stable of horses and elephants, in clearing jungles and setting up tents and camps. In battle-fields, they stood in the front line on foot with daggers and swords, bows and arrows and bore the brunt of enemy attacks.

A similar trend existed in the employment of native soldiers elsewhere. When the Egyptian Coptic converts to Islam had to be drafted into the army after the initial resistance,

‘they were enrolled in the foot-soldier brigades, which meant that, in case of the army’s victory, they were entitled to receive only half the horsemen share of the war spoils.’[21] The European captives turned Muslims in Morocco, the most hated ones among the slaves, were employed in the army to do difficult battles against deadly rebels.

They had to lead the first wave of attack against the enemy; and they had no way to escape but take the enemy assaults on their bodies. In the battle, if they tried to betray or give way, they were cut up in pieces.

[22] Employment in royal factories: Another major enterprise for employing slaves in large numbers was the royal karkhana (factory/workhouse), which existed throughout the Sultanate and Mughal periods in India.

These workhouses used to produce and manufacture goods of every conceivable royal usage: articles of gold, silver, brass and other metals, textiles, perfumes, armors, weapons, leather goods and clothes, saddles for horses and camels, and covers for elephants.

[23] Thousands of slaves trained as artisans and craftsmen worked in running these factories, watched by senior Amirs or Khans. Firoz Shah Tughlaq had 12,000 slaves working in his karkhanas.

They produced articles of excellent quality for every need of the sultans and emperors, and their generals, soldiers and nobles—including weapons for warfare, and gifts for sending to overseas kings and overlords. Commodore Steward and his entourage, visiting Sultan Moulay Ismail’s workhouses in Morocco, found them ‘‘full of men and boys at work… making saddles, stocks for guns, scabbards for cymiters [sic] and other things.’’

[24] Employment in palaces and royal courts: Following is a summary of Lal’s account of the employment of slaves in royal palaces and court.

[25] Slaves were used in large numbers in various departments of the royal courts. Large numbers of them acted as spies; thousands were needed in the Revenue and Postal Departments for collecting revenues and carrying official communications, respectively.

At the palace, slaves were also needed in very large numbers. Emperor Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan had 5,000 to 6,000 women (wives and concubines) in their harems; and each one of them had a few to many bandis (slave women) to care for them. They lived in separate apartments and were guarded by female guards, eunuchs, and porters in successive circles.

There were also large bands of slaves playing trumpets, drums, and pipes etc. Slaves were engaged in fanning the royal persons and driving away mosquitoes. In the services of Sultan Muhammad Shah Tughlaq (d. 1351), wrote Shihabuddin al-Omari:

‘…there are 1,200 physicians; 10,000 falconers who ride on horseback and carry birds trained for hawking; 300 beaters go in front and put up the game; 3,000 dealers in articles required for hawking accompany him when he goes out hunting; 500 table companions dine with him.

He supports 1,200 musicians excluding about 1,000 slave musicians who are in charge of teaching music, and 1,000 poets of Arabic, Persian and Indian languages. About 2,500 oxen, 2,000 sheep, and other animals were slaughtered daily for the supplies of the royal kitchen.’

The number of slaves needed for these huge undertakings on a daily basis and all other chores of the royal palaces are not available, but not impossible to guess.

Numerous staffs were employed for amusements and sports: hunting, shooting, pigeon-flying and so on. Sultan Alauddin Khilji had 50,000 pigeon-boys in his collection.

Slaves were engaged even to train the fighting instinct of a variety of animals down to frogs and spiders,’ recorded Moreland. Emperor Humayun’s rival Sher Shah, a not-so-powerful and well-established ruler, had employed 3,400 horses in postal communications and maintained about 5,000 elephants in his stable. Seven slaves were engaged to look after each elephant.

Jahangir records in his memoir that four slaves looked after each of his dogs brought as presents from England. According to Moroccan chronicler Ahmed ben Nasiri, Sultan Moulay Ismail had about 12,000 horses in his stable and two slaves were employed to look after every ten stallions.

[26] According to Pellow, who briefly acted as a harem-guard, Sultan Moulay Ismail’s huge harem had 4,000 concubines and wives.

[27] Obviously a large number of slaves were engaged in guarding the harems.

Employment in household and agricultural works: In royal palaces, slaves were employed in tens of thousands. The nobles, provincial governors and high-ranking generals employed slaves in hundreds to thousands in activities of the courts and household chores. One official of Emperor Jahangir had 1,200 eunuch slaves alone.

From expeditions, Muslim soldiers used to get many slaves as their share. Some of them used to be sold away, while the rest were employed in the household and outdoor chores and activities to provide the masters every comfort.

According to Islamic laws as enshrined in the Pact of Omar, non-Muslims could not purchase slaves belonging to Muslims. Therefore, only Muslims could legally buy slaves in the markets of Islamdom. This restriction was likely implemented strictly in the early periods of Islam.

The Muslim population was small during the early decades and centuries of Islam, while the yield of slaves for sale was very large because of the rapid success in conquests.

This oversupply of slaves enabled even ordinary Muslim households to own many slaves as already noted. The yield of captives in certain campaigns was so large that they had to be sold in batches as did Caliph al-Mutasim in 838.

What were these slaves, from a few to many, doing in the household of the ordinary, even poor, Muslim owners? Obviously, they were employed in every conceivable type of labor and chores possible:

household works of every kind and anything that required physical exertion, such as herding the animals and working in the backyards and farms. The slaves, thus, enabled their owners to lead a life of comfort, ease and indulgence free of labor. According to Lewis, ‘Slaves, most of them black Africans, appeared in large number in economic projects.

From early Islamic times, large numbers of black slaves were employed in draining the salt flats of southern Iraq. Poor conditions led to a series of uprisings. Other black slaves were employed in the gold mines of Upper Egypt and Sudan, and in the salt mines of Sahara.’

[28] Segal adds: ‘(They) dug ditches, drained marshland, cleared salt flats of their crust; they cultivated sugar, and cotton in plantations; and they were accommodated in camps that contained five hundred to five thousand each.’

[29] Because of these deadly uprisings, Muslim rulers, later on, were cautious about employing slaves in large congregations on specific projects.

In Islamic Guinea and Sierra Leone, the masters of “slave town” employed their slaves in agricultural farms in the nineteenth century.

[30] The slaves of Sultan Sayyid Sa’id (d. 1856) in East Africa ‘labored in the great clove plantations on Zanzibar and Pemba islands…’

[31] Segal quotes Nehemia Levtzion that ‘‘In the fifteenth century, slaves were in great demand for expanding plantation agriculture in Southern Morocco.’ In the nineteenth century, adds Segal, when the demand for cotton was high and supply of slaves from Sudan was plentiful, they were used to increase production of crop in Egypt, while large numbers of slaves… were used for grain production on the East African coast and in the clove plantation on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba.’

[32] In the nineteenth century, some 769,000 black slaves were engaged in the Arab plantations of Zanzibar and Pemba, while 95,000 of them were shipped to the Arab plantations in the Mascareme Islands from East Africa alone.[33]

[1]. Lal (1994), p. 97

[2]. Reid A (1993) The Decline of Slavery in Nineteenth-Century Indonesia, In Klein MA ed., Breaking the Chains: Slavery, Bondage and Emancipation in Modern Africa and Asia, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, p. 68

[3]. Sharma, p. 95

[4]. Gibb, p. 195

[5]. Ibid

[6]. Watson F and Hiro D (2002) India: A Concise History, Thames & Hudson, p. 96

[7]. Lal (1994), p. 84

[8]. Ibid, p. 84–85

[9]. Ibid, p. 86,88

[10]. Gibb, p. 194–95

[11]. Lal (1994), p. 88

[12]. Milton, p. 100–01

[13]. Ibid, p. 102

[14]. Ibid, p. 104–05

[15]. Ibid

[16]. Ibid, p. 240–41

[17]. Large numbers of volunteer Jihadists from the Islamic world, seeing new opportunities for engaging in holy war against the infidels, also poured into Sindh to join Qasim’s army.

[18]. Moreland, p. 88

[19]. Lal (1994), p. 89–93

[20]. Ibid

[21]. Tagher J (1998) Christians in Muslim Egypt: A Historical Study of the Relations between Copts and Muslims from 640 to 1922, trs. Makar RN, Oros Verlag, Altenberge, p. 18

[22]. Milton, p. 135–36

[23]. Lal (1994), p. 96–99

[24]. Milton, p. 186

[25]. Lal (1994), p. 99–102

[26]. Milton, p. 132

[27]. Ibid, p. 120

[28]. Lewis (2000), p. 209

[29]. Segal, p. 42

[30]. Rodney W (1972) In MA Klein & GW Johnson eds., p. 158

[31]. Gann L (1972), In Ibid, p. 182

[32]. Ibid, p. 44–45

[33]. Ibid, p. 60–61

The limits of tolerance


A Pakistani author writing in Pakistan’s leading newspaper shows more sense in what he has written than a lot of others.

The limits of tolerance

By Irfan Husain Thursday, 26 Aug, 2010

Dawn
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-limits-of-tolerance-680

The ongoing furore over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque shows no sign of abating after weeks of noisy controversy. In a sense, it has become a litmus test of America’s cherished freedom of worship, as well as its tolerance of other people and other faiths.

But to put things in perspective, I would like to invite readers to imagine that a group of Christians asked for approval to build a church close to the site of an iconic building in Pakistan some of their fellow-believers had destroyed, killing thousands. How would we have responded?

Actually, this scenario is so implausible as to be practically meaningless. The sad reality is that non-Muslims in Pakistan live on sufferance, and it would be unthinkable for them to even dream of expanding their places of worship, let alone constructing new ones. A few years ago, I recall writing about the trials and tribulations of Christians trying to build a church in Islamabad despite having received official permission. They were bullied by a local mullah, and found no support from the city administration. Since then, things have got worse for the minorities.

The ongoing dispute in New York is another reminder of how civilised societies treat those citizens who do not subscribe to the majority faith. Much to his credit, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew, by the way) approved the project, despite opposition from right-wing groups. It is President Barack Obama who has been a disappointment to liberals with his equivocation over the issue: after appearing to endorse it at an iftar event for Muslim ambassadors, he backtracked swiftly in the face of shrill and expected criticism from the right.

In a controversial article that appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen (Mischief in Manhattan; 7 August), Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, two Muslims who live in Canada, argued that proceeding with the project is tantamount to mischief-making, an act prohibited in Islam. The authors have been attacked for their stance on the Internet, with readers accusing them of taking a reactionary line.

The truth is that the issue has become highly divisive, with over 60 per cent of Americans opposing the project. Before readers think this reflects poorly on secular attitudes in the country, please recall that there are some 30 mosques in New York. What is really giving offence is the location of the proposed Muslim community centre as it is a couple of blocks from where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11.

For weeks now, this controversy has been in the news with talking heads on TV from across the political spectrum reviling or defending the project, initially dubbed the Cordoba Initiative. Critics have attacked the name of the centre for serving as a reminder of Muslim conquests in Europe. In response, the developer has said the name has been changed to Park51.

In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?

The project is expected to cost around $100 million, and many think the bulk of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, even though the source of the funds has not been made public yet. If this is indeed so, Raza and Fatah consider this would be a slap in the face of Americans as “nine of the jihadis in the Twin Towers calamity were Saudis”. More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madressahs around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. Many of these have been used to project the country’s official Wahabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet one more such mosque.

Raza and Fatah ask why the $100 million can’t be put to use to help people in Darfur and Pakistan instead? This is especially relevant in the context of the floods that are devastating much of Pakistan today. My own question is about reciprocity: if the Saudis can aggressively spread their ideology abroad, why can’t other beliefs build their places of worship in Saudi Arabia?

Currently, it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple in the country. Even importing copies of the Bible or the Torah is forbidden. Granted, Saudi Arabia is not an example of tolerance and freedom of worship. In fact, it is one of the most benighted societies on the planet where the royal family rules with an iron hand in partnership with the clergy. Nevertheless, every time the government or individual members of the ruling House of Saud wish to fund a religious centre abroad, they should be asked to open up their country to other faiths.

Liberal Americans will respond – to their everlasting credit – that their constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship should not be hostage to mediaeval attitudes in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Ironically, given the choice between living in a religiously ordered state or in a secular country like America, Muslims have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. Most of them are happier in their adopted home, and are free to worship as they please.

This is America’s major strength, and it would be a pity if the events of 9/11 were to erode it. Despite the strong religious strand in American society, it welcomes all faiths. All the more reason, then, for everybody in this melting pot to be respectful of others.

If I am having a meal with a devout Hindu friend at a restaurant, I would not dream of ordering a steak because I am aware that for him or her, cows are sacred. While we all have certain rights, we often do not choose to exercise them so as not to cause offence. This is what living in a heterogeneous society like America entails, so if Muslims opt to live there out of their own free will, it seems to me that they would be wise not to test the limits of tolerance.

Circumcised Men Vs Natural UnCircumcised Men


penis with foreskin

Image via Wikipedia

Sex with an Uncircumcised Man     …By : empowher.com   …

“Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that Stupid GOD of Cult requires a donation of foreskin?” 

I’ll be honest; I had to do a lot of research before sitting down to write this article. I have only come into contact with one uncircumcised penis during my short stint as a single adult woman, and it didn’t really seem to be that big of a deal at the time.

However, when it comes to uncircumcised penises, there’s more than meets the eye . Approximately 50% of men are “uncut,” which is really how the penis is meant to be in the first place (not many men outside the United States are circumcised). Circumcision originated among ancient religious populations as a way to purify man by removing the source of his sexual pleasure. This tradition has held its ground into the 21st century, which can lead to quite a bit of confusion when a woman unexpectedly comes into contact with a penis au naturale.
Make Him Chase You – Challenge Him!
Make Him Fall Head Over Heels – Men Just Can’t Resist This

It may surprise you to learn that the foreskin itself, before it is separated from its owner, is extremely sensitive to pleasure. During circumcision two very important things are removed that will never grow back: the frenulum, the band near the tip of the penis that connects the foreskin with the glans, and then of course, the foreskin and all the nerve endings that go along with it.
Get Him to Do What You Want – Make Him Give More Than Just His Heart
Make Him Commit – Work Your Magic
Make Him Fall in Love – Feeling Good, Falling Hard

Not only are these sources of pleasure eliminated during circumcision, but the shaft of the penis is left unprotected and slowly loses its responsiveness through a process called keratinization. In an article published in Fathering Magazine, Rio Cruz explains that “the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the clitoris and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue.”

The main difference in having sex with an uncircumcised penis is that the foreskin acts as a glider of sorts, and it stays in place while the glans and shaft continue to thrust. This leads to less friction in the vagina and thus a more pleasurable experience for the female.

For circumcised men who are experiencing gradual loss of sensation throughout the course of their lifetime, there actually is a process of foreskin restoration that involves the use of tape and weights (?).

So when all is said and done, you (and your partner) are actually likely to have much better sex with a penis that is uncircumcised. If you’re performing oral sex and looking for tips, just focus your efforts on the ridge just below the glans and use your hand to help the foreskin go with the flow. That’s all there is to it!

%d bloggers like this: