• Blog Stats

    • 138,808 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

    March 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Authors Of Blog

  • Monthly Archives

Muslims are not happy


Brilliant One ……….Just Brilliant !

Muslims are not happy

They’re not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in England
They’re happy in France
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway
They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!
And who do they blame?
Not Islam…
Not their leadership…
Not themselves…
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN
And they want to change the countries they’re happy in,
to be like the countries they came from,
where they were unhappy.
Try to find logic in that !

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!

Islam Can Not Fool The Public Anymore.


 by Musil Shihadeh

Islam cannot fool the public anymore

Islamic authorities all over are actively involved in all kinds of  public relation activities to improve Islamic image which has been  tarnished by “ignorant” anti-Islamic organizations all over the world.  Conferences, symposiums, exhibitions are being held in many countries to  include European, the far and Middle-eastern countries.

The  problem with such campaigns is that deceit and lies dominate their  approaches, of course, taking advantage of the ignorant public. Again  the theme being advocated is that Islam is a religion of peace  and mercy and replete with proofs that its origin could never be from  any source except from the divine Allah! The problem with such advocacy  is that people are no longer as naïve as these Islamic apologists wanted  them to be.

To achieve such objective they publicize these few verses  in the Quran that  cater to these themes and, of course, they ignore the hundreds of other  verses in the Quran that advocate violence and hatred against the other.  Therefore, whenever Islamic violence erupts somewhere against the  non-Moslems, denial and condemnation of such violence becomes the new  tactic espoused by these Islamists to prorogate that such violence is  against the Quran and its teachings.

 No need here to quote the hundreds  of verses in the Quran that advocate violence and hatred of the other as  the Quran is replete with them, it would be enough to unveil the Moslem Brotherhood constitution and the Third Islamic Summit Conference in 1981 held in Saudi Arabia which clearly state that every Moslem has the duty to be engaged in Jihad until the whole world convert to Islam.

 In Bukhari V4B53N386 and Muslim C9B1N31, both Mohammad and the Moslems are ordered by Allah to keep fighting the non-Moslems until everyone believes in Islam and his prophet.

My  question to those Islamic propagandists is how long they think they can  fool the innocent public before the true teachings of the Quran is  unveiled?

Sure the official and sanctioned interpreters of the Quran use  deceit and lies in hiding the true violent nature of the Quran.

 How  long though, such fiasco will last when hundreds of thousands of  apostates are engaged in using proper interpretations to unveil the  violent nature of the Quranic teachings?

Knowing  the truth, usually create a shock and indignation not only with  non-Moslems, but with the average ignorant Moslem, that new apostates  join the rank of anti-Islamists activists that will definitely lead to  the final collapse of this evil cult at large.

Autobiography Of Ali Sina. Why I Left Islam..


Autobiography Of Ali Sina. Why I Left Islam..

http://alisina.org/i-learned-the-truth-from-the-quran/

I was born into a moderately religious family.  On my mother’s side I have a few relatives who are Ayatollahs.  Although my grandfather (whom I never met) was somewhat a freethinker, we were believers.  My parents were not fond of the mullahs.  In fact, we did not have much to do with our more fundamentalist relatives.  We liked to think of ourselves as believing in “true Islam,” not the one taught and practiced by the mullahs.

I recall discussing religion with the husband of one of my aunts when I was about 15 years old.  He was a fanatical Muslim who was very concerned about the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).  It prescribes the way Muslims should pray, fast, run their public and private lives, do business, clean themselves, use the toilet, how to urinate, and defacate and copulate.  I argued these have nothing to do with the true Islam. I thought these things were fabricated by mullahs, and that excessive attention to fiqh diminishes the value of the pure message of Islam, which I believed is to unite man with his creator.  This view is mostly inspired by Sufism.  Many Iranians, thanks to Rumi’s poems, are to a great degree Sufi in their outlook.

Of course Sufism is not really peaceful. It is however more mystical than the real Islam that is utterly this worldly and unspiritual. However, it can be quite misleading.

In my early youth I noticed discrimination and cruelties against the members of religious minorities in Iran.  This was more noticeable in provincial towns where the mullahs had a better grip over the gullible population.

Due to my father’s work we spent a few years in small towns out of the capital.  One day our teacher announced that he would take the class swimming.  A simple thing like that was a great treat to us, living in a third world country.  We were excited and looked forward to it.  In the class there were a couple of kids who were Baha’i and Jew.  On the day we were ready to go swimming, out teacher told them they cannot come.  He said they are not allowed to swim in the same pool with Muslims.  I cannot forget those kids’ disappointment as they left school with tears in their eyes, subdued and heartbroken.  At that age, maybe nine or ten, I could not make sense of things and was saddened by this injustice.  I thought it was the kid’s fault for not being Muslims.

I believe I was lucky for having open-minded parents who encouraged me to think critically.  They tried to instill in me the love of God and his messengers, yet upheld humanistic values like equality of rights between men and women, and love for all humankind.  Now I know they did not know anything about the real Islam.  In a sense, this was how most educated Iranian families were.  In fact, the majority of Muslims believe Islam is a humanistic religion that respects human rights, elevates the status of women and protects their rights.  Most Muslims believe that Islam means peace. Needless to say, few of them have read the Quran.

I spent my early youth in this idyllic paradise of ignorance, advocating the “true Islam” as I thought it should be, and criticizing the mullahs and their deviations from the real Islam.  I idealized an Islam that conformed to my own humanistic values.  My imaginary Islam was a beautiful religion.  It was a religion of equality and peace.  It was a religion that encouraged its followers to go after knowledge and to be inquisitive.  It was a religion that was in harmony with science and reason.  In fact, I was led to believe that the science got its inspiration from Islam, which eventually bore its fruit in the West and made modern discoveries and inventions possible.  Islam, hence, was the real cause of modern civilization.  The reason Muslims were living in such a miserable state of ignorance, I thought, was all the fault of the self-centered mullahs and religious leaders who for their own personal gain had misinterpreted the Islam. This is really how all Muslims think. They are unwilling to find any fault with Islam. They blame themselves and everyone else for everything that is wrong with their religion.

Muslims believe that the western civilization has its roots in Islam.  They recall Middle Eastern scientific minds whose contributions to science have been crucial in the birth of modern science.

Omar Khayyam was a great mathematician who calculated the length of the year with a precision of .74% of a second.  Zakaria Razi can very well be regarded as one of the first founders of empirical science who based his knowledge on research and experimentation.  Avicenna’s monumental encyclopedia of medicine was taught in European universities for centuries.  There are more great luminaries, who have “Islamic names,” who were the pioneers of modern science when Europe was languishing in the medieval Dark Ages.  Like all Muslims, I believed all these great men were Muslims and that they were inspired by the hidden knowledge in the Quran; and that if today’s Muslims could regain the original purity of Islam, the long lost glorious days of Islam will return and Muslims will lead the world civilization once again.

Iran was a Muslim country, but it was also a corrupt country.  The chance of getting into a good university was slim.  Only one in ten applicants could get into the university.  Often they were forced to choose subjects that they did not want to study because they could not get enough points for the subjects of their choice.  Students with the right connections got the seats.

The standard of education in Iran was not ideal.  Universities were under-funded, as the Shah preferred building a powerful military might to become the gendarme of the Middle East rather than build the infrastructure of the country and invest in people’s education.  He was naturally distrustful of intellectuals. These were reasons why my father thought I would be better off to leave Iran to continue my education elsewhere.

We considered America and Europe, but my father, acting upon the counsel of a few of his religious friends, thought another Islamic country would be better for a 16 year old boy.  We were told that in the west, morality is lax, the beaches are full of nudes, and they drink and have licentious lifestyles, all of which being harmful to a young man.  So I was sent to Pakistan instead, where people were religious and moral.  A friend of the family told us that Pakistan is just like England, except that it is cheaper.

This, of course, proved to be untrue.  I found Pakistanis to be as immoral and corrupt as Iranians, if not more.  Yes they were very religious.  They did not eat pork and I saw no one consuming alcohol in public, but they lied, were hypocrites, were cruel to women, and above all, were filled with hatred of Indians.  They were not moral at all. They were religious but not ethical.

In college, instead of taking Urdu I took Pakistani Culture to complete my A level FSc (Fellow of Science).  I learned the reason for Pakistan’s partition from India and for the first time heard about Muhammad Ali Jinah, the man Pakistanis call Qaid-e A’zam, the great leader.  He was presented as an intelligent man, the Father of the Nation, while Gandhi was spoken of in a derogatory way.  Even then, I could not but side with Gandhi and condemn Jinah as an arrogant, ambitious man who was the culprit for breaking up a country and causing millions of deaths.  You could say I always had a mind of my own and was a maverick in my thinking.  No matter what I was taught, I always came to my own conclusion.

I did not see differences of religion as a valid reason for breaking up a country.  The very word Pakistan was an insult to Indians.  They called themselves pak (clean) to distinguish themselves from the Indians who were najis (unclean).  Ironically, I never saw a people dirtier than the Pakistanis, both physically and mentally.  It was disappointing to see another Islamic nation in such intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

In discussions with my friends I failed to convince them of the “true Islam.”  I condemned their bigotry and fanaticism while they disapproved of me for my un-Islamic views. It took me many years and a lot of study to realize they were right about Islam and I was the ignorant one.

I reported all this to my father and decided to go to Italy for my university studies.  In Italy people drink wine and eat pork, but I found them more hospitable, friendlier, and less hypocritical than Muslims.  I noticed people were willing to help without expecting something in return.  I met a lovely elderly couple, who invited me to have lunch with them on Sundays so I would not have to stay home alone.  They did not want anything from me.  They just wanted someone to love.  I was almost a grandson to them.  Only someone who has been a stranger in a new country can appreciate the value of the help and hospitality of the locals.

Their house was sparklingly clean with shiny marble floor.  This contradicted what I had been told about non-Muslims.  According to Islam the unbelievers are filthy and one should not befriend them. (Q.9:28)   The Quran says, “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but awliya’ to one another…Q.5: 51

I had difficulty understanding the “wisdom” of such a verse.  I wondered why I should not befriend these wonderful people who had no ulterior motive in showing me their hospitality than just making me feel at home.  I thought they were “true Muslims” and I tried to raise the subject of religion hoping they would see the truth of Islam and embrace it.  They were not interested and politely changed the subject.  I was not stupid enough at any time in my life to believe that all non-believers will go to hell for not being Muslim.  I read this in the Quran before but never wanted to think about it.  I simply brushed it off or ignored it.  Of course, I knew that God would be pleased if someone recognized his messenger but never thought he would actually be so cruel to burn people for eternity, just because they were not Muslim.  But the Quran was clear:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).  Q 3:85,

Despite that I paid little heed and tried to convince myself that the meaning of this verse and those similar to it is something other than what they appears to be.  At that moment this was not a subject that I was ready to handle.  So I did not think about it. Most Muslims live in this state of denial.

I hung around with my Muslim friends and noticed that most of them lived a very immoral life of double standards.  Most of them found girlfriends and slept with them.  That was very un-Islamic, or so I thought at that time.  What bothered me most was the fact that they did not value these girls as real human beings who deserved respect.  These girls were not Muslim and therefore were used and treated as object.  This attitude was not general.  Those who made less show of their religiosity were more respectful and sincere towards their western girlfriends and some even loved them and wanted to marry them. Paradoxically, those who were more religious were less faithful and more hypocritical.

In my mind the true Islam was whatever was right.  If I thought something was immoral, unethical, dishonest or cruel, I thought it is un-Islamic.  And vice versa, anything that was good, I attributed to Islam.  This is how most Muslims think of Islam, but that is not Islam.  At that time I was unable to see that Muslims are bad because of Islam.

Those who were more devout were more immoral.  The ones who defended Islam more vehemently were the ones who led impious lives. They would lose their temper and start a fight if someone said a word against Islam.

Once I befriended a young Iranian man at the university restaurant and introduced him to two other Muslim friends of mine.  We were all about the same age.  He was erudite, virtuous and wise.  We used to wait for him and sit next to him during lunch hour, and we always learned something from him.  We used to eat a lot of spaghetti and risotto and craved a good Persian ghorme sabzi and chelow.  Our friend said his mother had sent him some dried vegetables and invited us to his house the next Sunday for lunch.  We found his two-room apartment clean.  He made us a delicious ghorme sabzi which we ate with gusto and then sat back chatting and sipping tea.  It was then that we noticed his Baha’i books.  When we asked about them, he said he was a Baha’i.

On the way home my two friends said they did not wish to continue their friendship with him.  I was surprised and asked why.  They said that being a Baha’i makes him najis and had they known he was a Baha’i, they would not have befriended him.  I was puzzled and enquired why they thought he was najis if we all were complementing him on his cleanliness.  We all agreed he was a morally superior man than the Muslims we knew, so why this sudden change of heart?  They said the name itself had something in it that made them dislike this religion.  They asked me if I knew why everyone disliked the Baha’is.  I told them I didn’t know why others don’t like the Baha’is. Baha means glory. Nothing wrong with that!  And that I liked everyone. I asked them since they disliked the Baha’is, perhaps they should explain their reasons.  They did not know why!  This man was the first Baha’i they knew this well, and he was an exemplary man.  I wanted to know the reason for their dislike.  There was no particular reason, they said.  It’s just they know that Baha’is are bad.

I am happy I did not continue my friendship with these two bigots. From them I learned how prejudice is formed and operates. Later I realized that the prejudice and the hatred that Muslims harbor against almost all non-Muslims is because the Quran instills them in their minds.

Those who go to the mosques and listen to the sermons of the mullahs are affected.  There are many verses in the Quran that call the believers to hate the non-believers, fight them, subdue them, humiliate them, chop off their heads and limbs, crucify them, and kill them wherever they find them.

I left the religion on the backburner for several years.  My faith had not been diminished, but I had so much to do that I did not have time for religion.  Meanwhile, I learned about democracy, human rights, equality, freedom of speech and other things that made the western world become what it is. I liked what I learned.  Did I pray?  Whenever, I could, but not regularly.  After all, I was living and working in a Western country and did not want to look too different.

One day, I decided that it was time for me to deepen my knowledge of Islam and read the Quran from cover to cover.  I found an Arabic copy of the Quran with an English translation and used also my own Persian translation.  Previously, I read only bits and pieces of the Quran.  This time I read all of it.  I would read a verse in Arabic; then I’d read its English and Persian translations; then read again the Arabic verse, and did not read the next verse until I understood the Arabic.

It didn’t take long before I came upon verses I found hard to accept.  One of these verses was, “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.” 4:48

I found it hard to believe that Gandhi would burn in hell forever because he was a polytheist with no hope of redemption, whereas Muslim murderer could hope to receive Allah’s forgiveness.  This raised the question, why is Allah so desperate to be known as the only god?  If there are no other gods but him, what is the fuss?  Why should he even care whether anyone knows him and praises him or not?

That sounded quite petty.  Let us say a husband is jealous and says to his wife if you look at other men I will beat you. Now that is quite pathetic. But let us say the couple lives in an island where there are no men except the husband.  Wouldn’t it be insane if the husband express jealousy for men who do not exist?  If there is no other god but Allah why is he so paranoid?  Allah did not seem to be quite a stable god. The Islamic shihadah, there is no god but Allah, started to sound silly.  If Allah knows there is no other god but him why is he so obsessed about it?

I learned about the size of this universe.  Light that travels at a speed of 300,000 kilometers per second takes 40 billion years to reach us from galaxies that are at the edges of the visible universe.  The visible universe could be a speck in comparison to the actual size of the universe.  How many trillions of galaxies are out there?  Each one of these galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars?  Each star has a dozen of planets.  The universe is so big. Why is Allah so concerned about whether he is worshipped by insignificant creatures on this tiny planet?

Now that I had lived in the West, had many western friends who had opened their hearts and homes to me, and accepted me as their friend, it was hard to accept that Allah did not want me to befriend them. “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah (Q3:28). Isn’t Allah the creator of the unbelievers too?  Isn’t he the god of everybody?  Why he should be so unkind to his own creation?  Wouldn’t it be better if Muslims befriended the unbelievers and taught them Islam by good examples?  By keeping ourselves aloof and distant from others, the gap of misunderstandings will never be bridged.  How in the world will the unbelievers learn about Islam if we don’t associate with them?  These were the questions I kept asking myself.  At the same time I was reading verses such as “slay them wherever ye catch them.” (Q 2:191) That sounded mad. Am I wiser that Allah? Sure it looked like it.  Slay them wherever you find them is stupid, no matter who says it.  Are these the words of God or are they falsely attributed to him?  That was a question kept popping up in my mind as I read the Quran.

I thought of my own friends, remembering their kindnesses and love for me, and wondered how in the world a true god would ask anyone to kill another human being just because he does not believe.  Yet this concept was repeated so often in the Quran that there was no doubt about it.  In verse 8:65, Allah tells his prophet, “O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight.  If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers.”

I wondered why Allah would send a messenger to make war.  Shouldn’t God teach us to love each other and be tolerant of one another?  If Allah were so concerned about being worshipped to the extent that he would kill them and burn them if they don’t believe, why would he not kill them himself?  Why does he ask us to do his dirty work?  Are we Allah’s henchmen and gangsters?

Although I knew of Jihad and never thought about its implication, I found it hard to accept that God would resort to imposing such violent measures on people.  What was more shocking was the cruelty of Allah in dealing with the unbelievers:

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.” 8:12

It seemed that Allah was not just satisfied with killing the unbelievers; he enjoyed torturing them before killing them.  But at the same time he was incapable of inflicting any harm on anyone and relied on Muslims to do his dirty work for him.  Smiting people’s heads from above their necks and chopping their fingertips?  Are these divine attributes?  Would God really give such orders?  And yet the worst is what he promised to do with the unbelievers in the other world:

These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.  With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.  In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!”  22:19-22

How could the creator of this universe be so cruel?  I was shocked to learn that the Quran tells Muslims to:

–         kill unbelievers wherever they find them (Q.2:191),

–         murder them and treat them harshly (Q.9:123),

–         fight them, (Q.8:65),until no other religion than Islam is left (Q.2:193)

–         humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax if they are Christians or Jews, (Q.9:29)

–         slay them if they are Pagans (Q.9:5), crucify, or cut off their hands and feet,

–         expel them from the land in disgrace.  And as if this were not enough, “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q.5:34),

–         not befriend their own fathers or brothers if they are not believers (Q.9:23), (Q.3:28),

–         kill their own family in the battles of Badr and Uhud and asks Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor” (Q.25:52),

–         be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q.66:9), etc, etc.

How can any sensible person remain unmoved when reading the Quran that says: “strike off the heads of the unbelievers” then after a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (Q.47:4).

I was also did not like it when I learned the Quran denies the freedom of belief for all and clearly states that Islam is the only acceptable religion (Q.3:85). It sounded petty to for the creator of the world to burn people for disbelief (Q.5:11), call them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q.9:28) and say they will be forced to drink boiling water (Q.14:17).

But there is no end to Allah’s sadism. He promises,  “As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowls and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q.22:9).

As I read more, I came to see that everything wrong with Islam is because of the Quran.  The vicious mullahs that foam their mouths and spew hate are not misguided. They are good Muslims doing what Muhammad told them to do. It was I who was ignorant.

The book of Allah says women are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to beat them (Q.4:34); the women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (Q.66:10); that men are superior to women (Q.2:228) and women don’t have equal right to their inheritance (Q.4:11-12). According to the Quran women are imbeciles whose testimony alone cannot be admissible in court (Q.2:282). A woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness, which of course is a joke.  Rapists don’t rape in the presence of witnesses.  But the most shocking verse is where Allah allows Muslims to rape women captured in wars even if they are married (Q.4:24 and 4:3).

When I read the biography of Muhammad I learned that he raped the prettiest women he captured in his raids on the same day he killed their husbands.  This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they called them kafir and raped their women.  Pakistani soldiers raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 and massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic.  This is why the prison guards in the Islamic regime of Iran rape the women before killing. They are accused of being apostates and the enemies of Allah for opposing the regime. That is exactly what Muhammad did. Anyone who opposed him was deemed as opposing God and his blood was halal.

The whole Quran is full of verses that teach killing of unbelievers and how Allah would torture them after they die.  There are no lessons on morality, justice, honesty, or love in that book.  The only message of the Quran is to believe in Allah and his messenger.  The Quran coaxes people with celestial rewards of unlimited sex with fair whores in paradise and threatens with blazing fires of hell those who disbelieve.

When the Quran speaks of righteousness, it does not mean righteousness in the sense that we know it. Righteousness means doing what Muhammad said and did, which was far from being righteous.

A Muslim can be a killer and yet be a righteous person.  Good actions in the sense that we generally understand them are secondary. In fact they are unimportant altogether. The belief in Allah and his messenger are the ultimate purpose of a person’s life.

After reading the Quran I became greatly depressed.  This book is evil and I had a hard time to believe in so much evilness.  I am naturally moved by love.  Violence is repulsive to me.  At first I denied my understanding of what I was reading and searched for esoteric meanings to these evil verses of the Quran that constituted most of it. My efforts were in vain.  There was no misunderstanding!  The Quran was overwhelmingly inhumane.  It also contained a lot of scientific heresies and absurdities, but they were not what impacted most.  It was the sheer violence of this book that really shook the foundation of my belief.

Using both English and Persian translations as my guide, I also noticed that the English translation is not accurate.  The translator had tried his best to hide the harshness and asininity of the Quran, twisting the meaning of the words and inserting his own sugarcoated explanations in parenthesis.  I checked other English translations and all of them are deceptively soft and sugary.  Obviously the translators were aware that their work will be read by non-Muslims and did their best to deceive them.  The Persian translator of the Quran did not seem to be bound by such constraints and has retained is pristine evilness.

faithfreedom-org.jpg

“Islamic Purity” MYTH BUSTED


SOME TIMES BY ; SAM HINDU

Once upon a time there lived a man named Muhammad who claimed that his religion, the Islamic religion, was a perfect religion of absolute purity.

But is it really?

This article will attempt to make clear that no human being or religion has ever done as much harm to the well-being of humanity as has Muhammad bin Abdullah of Arabian fame and his barbaric cult of IslamMuhammad: A Cult Leader or Muslims are struck in a cult. (via Santosh Bhatt’s Blog)

To this day, Muslims still believe that Islam is a perfect religion and the only true religion on earth. In fact the Islamists, the “true believers”, must believe and respect everything that Muhammad said and did. Muslims must not only believe that Islam is the one and only true religion on earth, they must also believe that all other religions are grossly inaccurate and ultimately offensive to God. Muhammad certainly made many extreme and dangerous statements.

“Islamic Purity” is another one of the many idiotic myths commonly believed by Muslims. In reality, Islam is anything but pure and true. It is quite laughable to read through Muhammad’s murder manual, the unholy Quran, and notice how many times it claims the religion to be perfect and pure. The tall claim that Islam is a religion of truth and purity and a religion of peace and justice is preposterous. Such falsehoods could only be believed by the uninformed or the feeble-minded.

The Notion of Islamic Purity:

The Islamic “holy books” are filled with empty claims stating that Islam is a pure and true religion. For 1400 years, many well-meaning Muslims have dedicated their lives attempting to improve and advance Muhammad’s cult of death and destruction. It is high-time that Muslims take a good hard look at the life of Muhammad and the details of this sick man’s religion of fear and hatred. It is ridiculous that educated Muslims are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that the prophet of Islam was indeed a mad man.

Throughout the centuries, Muslims have invested enormous amounts of time and energy trying to improve, beautify and purify Muhammad’s religion. Yet despite all of their efforts, Islam has failed Muslims horribly. In the end, the cruel injustice of Sharia law is the bitter fruit that Islam has historically produced over and over again the devout and obedient followers of Muhammad. Muslims always end up killing each other and trying to conquer others.

One of Islam’s most common attempts to achieve “Islamic purity” is wudu (ablution). Performing wudu – the washing of various parts of the body over and over again before performing salat (Islamic rituals of prayer) –THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS RECITE ALL DAY IN THEIR FIVE DAILY SALATS AND FREE TIME   is surely one of the more ridiculous of Islam’s many outlandish rituals. Having to repeat the washing of specific parts of the body over and over again 5 times a day is obvious proof of Muhammad’s obsessive compulsive disorder and the complete control he had over the lives of his brainwashed band of seventh century bandits. Mad Mohammad, What an Irony?

Another false image of Islamic purity is to be found in the elaborate works of art that decorate many mosques. These works are another testament to Muslim’s attempt to portray Islam as a religion of beauty and purity. Of course Muhammad would have forbidden such efforts and instead demanded that his followers wage jihad  and collect the booty for him. Unfortunately for the misguided Mohammedans,OR A (good) Moslem has to be a Terrorist! (via Sam Hindu’s Blog)  no amount of adornment can cover up or make clean the dark heart in the chest of Islam. For in truth, Islam is overflowing with the worst kinds of evil. The Islamic religion, in many parts and taken on the whole, is an abomination worthy of being despised.

Since the day that Muhammad’s cruel cult OF Momins and Kafirs..  sprung out of the Arabian Desert it has
destroyed countless number of humans with its horrific doctrines of intolerance and injustice. There are many ludicrous statements to be found in the Quran and
Sunnah stating that Islam is a religion of purity. The only challenge is choosing which passages most effectively show Islam to be the laughable fraud that it is. Here are just a few samples taken from Mad Moe’s evil and fundamentally flawed religious cult:

Claims of Islamic purity:

The Quranic passage below is nonsense. The verse is filled with lies. First, the Quran was not revealed to Muhammad. The Quran is the creation of Muhammad’s madness and lies that he used to take whatever he wanted. Secondly, there is no such thing as Muhammad’s Islamic god Allah. What an insult to God if there actually is some sort of god! Thirdly, the Islamic religion is far from pure. The Islamic religion and its prophet are filthy, evil trash  Mohammad (founder of Islam) The Pedophile]

Quran, 039.002:

Lo! We have revealed the Scripture unto thee (Muhammad) with truth; so worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only).

The Quranic verse below is very similar to the one above. The Quran is full of repetitious garbage. Again, the verse is pure lies. And again, as in the above verse, Muhammad claims that those are God’s words. Muhammad was insane and Islam is a pack of lies with a few good things thrown into it for the weaklings and the suckers to cling to. Such is the nature of a cult.

Quran, 039.011:

Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only).

Muslims must lie to themselves and others when they say that Islam is a pure and perfect religion. For example, for every good thing that Muhammad said about women, he said just as many bad things. Islam is full of contradictions, cruelty and gross injustice. Here are some of many disgusting and harmful things that Muhammad said about women:

002.222
They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.

002.228
Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

002.223
And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them.

002.230
So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her.

004.003
Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess (female sex slave), that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

* Of course the words “or (a captive) that your right hands possess” mean female sex slaves.

004.011
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:

004.024
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:

004.034
Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, “If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse.”

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “If a woman spends the night deserting her husband’s bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband).”

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.”

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.”

Hadith: Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, No. 2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-kahttab:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Conclusion:

Those Muslims’ that still believe Islam to be a pure and true religion are clearly suffering from “Islamic brain damage”  PLEASE READ THIS  Muhammad: A Cult Leader or Muslims are struck in a cult. (via Santosh Bhatt’s Blog)

Saleem Smith is a Canadian Ex-Muslim. He has his own site in which he expresses his views on Islam and other issues. Here is a LINK to his site.

%d bloggers like this: