• Blog Stats

    • 244,789 Visitors
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,072 other followers

  • Google Translator


  • FaceBook

  • Islamic Terror Attacks

  • Meta

  • iPaper Embed

  • Calendar

    February 2020
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec    
  • Authors Of Blog

  • Monthly Archives

Are Hindu Really Cowards or Ignorent…?


“Muslims are bullies and Hindus cowards”, the Mahatma Gandhi once said. He may be right – at least about Hindus: there has been in the past 1400 years, since the first invasions started, very few Shivaji’s and Maharana Pratap’s to fight the bloody rule of the Moghuls, or hardly any Rani of Jhansi’s to stand against the humiliating colonial yoke of the British. If a nation’s soul is measured by the courage of its children, then India is definitely doomed: without the Sikhs, whose bravery is unparalleled in the more recent history of India, Hindus would have even lost additional land to the Muslim invaders and there would have been infinitely more massacres of Hindus by Muslims during the first weeks of Partition.

Are Hindus more courageous since they have an independent nation? Not at all! Because of Nehru’s absurd and naïve “hindi-chini-bhai-bhai” policy, the Indian army was shamefully routed in 1962 by the Chinese, a humiliation which rankles even today. Beijing is still able to hoodwink Indian politicians, by pretending it has good intentions, while quietly keeping on giving nuclear know-how to Pakistan, as well as the missiles to carry their atomic warheads to Indian cities, arm separatists groups in the north-east and continuing to claim Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim.

Today, we see that Indian politicians, instead of standing-up to Islamic militancy and Chinese bully, prefer to look the other way and speak of ‘Hindu terrorism’, an absurdity if there is one. Hindus are hounded, humiliated, routed, be it in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where Muslims indulge in pogroms against Hindus every time they want to vent their hunger against India (read Taslima Nasreen’s book “Lalja”). In Kashmir, the land of yogis, where Hindu sadhus and sages have meditated for 5000 years, Hindus have been chased out of their ancestral home by death, terror and intimidation: there were 25% of Hindus at the beginning of the century in the Kashmir valley… and hardly a handful today. And look how the US is treating India, refusing to hand over Headley, responsible for the planning of the horrible Mumbai attacks and continuing to prop-up Pakistan, knowing very well that when American troops will leave Afghanistan, Islamabad will make sure that a friendly Taliban regime is reinstalled, with dire consequences for India’s security

There is no point in playing cricket against Pakistan, as long as Islamabad is sending militants to kill and maim into Indian territory. Yet, Hindus continue to think that in the name of sportsmanship, or democracy, it’s the right thing to do. We keep hearing about Hindu ‘terrorism’. But since fourteen centuries, Muslims have always struck first against Hindus, And those who live in Indian cities which have important Muslim minorities, will tell you that every time there are Hindu-Muslims, it is the Muslims who start them, either by attacking the police, or by provoking the Hindus.

The truth is that there are two standards in India: one for the Hindus; and one for the Muslims. Did the “fanatic” Hindus who brought down Ayodhya (and brought shame onto secular India, according to the Indian media) kill or even injure anyone in the process? No. But Muslims do not have such qualms. When Gandhi said they were bullies, he was being very nice or very polite. For forget about the millions of Hindus killed during the ten centuries of Muslim invasions, probably the worst Holocaust in world history; forget about the hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples razed to the ground, whose destruction – whatever our “secular” Hindus of today say – was carefully recorded by the Muslims themselves, because they were proud of it (see Aurangzeb’s own chronicles); forget about the millions of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam, and who sadly are now rallying under a banner, a language, a scripture which have nothing to do with their own ethos and culture (*). Yesterday and also today, when the Muslim world feels it has been slighted, in even a small measure by Hindus, these Infidels, who submitted meekly to Muslim rule for ten centuries, it retaliates a hundred fold – this is the only way one intimidates cowards. After Ayodhya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (at least in a passive way by giving shelter for a while to Tiger Memon) with the help of Indian Muslims, planted bombs in the heart of Bombay and killed a thousand innocent human beings, most of them, once more, Hindus.

This is no to say that all Muslims are fanatics; on the contrary, many of India’s Muslims are extremely gentle and their sense of hospitality unsurpassed. The same thing can be said about Pakistan: Pakistani politicians, for instance, are much more accessible than in India and Pakistan has its own identity, which cannot be wished away. No, the problem is not with Muslims, whether they are Indians or Pakistanis, the problem is with Islam, which teaches Indian Muslims from an early age, to look beyond their national identity to a country – the Mecca, in Saudi Arabia – which is not their country, to read a Scripture which is not written in their own language, to espouse a way of thinking, which is inimical to their own roots and indigenous culture. Indian Muslims, have to think of themselves first as Indians and secondly only as Muslims. Muslim soldiers fighting against Pakistan in Kargil, have shown the way.

One would be tempted to say in conclusion : “Arise ô Hindus, stop being cowards, remember that a nation requires Kshatriyas, warriors, to defend Knowledge, to protect one’s women and children, to guard one’s borders from the Enemy”…. And do Indians need a Narendra Modi to remind them of that simple truth ?


Indian Biased Media

Media will intrude the labour Ward of Ms.Aiswarya Rai Bachchan , but no news will be flashed about Priyanka’s kids.

Nor would there be a whisper about Rahul Gandhi’s Colombian Girl friend or a killing of a girl.

The Media respects the Privacy of Sonia Gandhi.

Well, what can you expect when the Media in India is not Indian at all?

“A very popular TV news media is funded by Gospels of Charity in Spain Supports Communism. Recently it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistan because Pakistan President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan . Indian CEO Prannoy Roy is co-brother ofPrakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist party of India . His wife and Brinda Karat are sisters.

India Today :

Which used to be the only national weekly which supported BJP is now bought by NDTV!! Since then the tone has changed drastically and turned into Hindu bashing.

This is 100 percent funded by Southern Baptist Churchwith its branches in all over the world with HQ in US.. The Church annually allocates $800 million for promotion of its channel. Its Indian head is Rajdeep Sardesai and his wife Sagarika Ghosh.

Times group list:
 Times Of India, Mid-Day, Nav-Bharth Times, Stardust, Femina, Vijay Times, Vijaya Karnataka, Times now (24- hour news channel) and many more…

Times Group is owned by Bennet & Coleman. ‘World Christian Council’ does 80 percent of the Funding, and an Englishman and an Italian equally share balance 20 percent. The Italian Robertio Mindo is a close relative of Sonia Gandhi.

Star TV:

It is run by an Australian, who is supported by St. Peters Pontifical Church Melbourne.

Hindustan Times:

Owned by Birla Group, but hands have changed since Shobana Bhartiya took over. Presently it is working in Collaboration with Times Group.

The Hindu:

English daily, started over 125 years has been recently taken over by Joshua Society, Berne , Switzerland .. N. Ram’s wife is a Swiss national.

Indian Express:

Divided into two groups. The Indian Express and new Indian Express (southern edition) ACTS Christian Ministries have major stake in the Indian Express and latter is still with the Indian counterpart.”

Pakistan on the Brink by Ahmed Rashid: review


Pakistan on the Brink by Ahmed Rashid: review

By Duncan Gardham Last Updated: 12:26PM BST 23/04/2012
Ahmed Rashid’s new books reveals a Pakistan crippled by poor leadership, says Duncan Gardham

As Britain desperately tries to rescue some pride from its imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan, the best-case scenario may be that we leave behind a less stable and more corrupt version of Pakistan.

The vision of that country painted by Ahmed Rashid, one of the leading analysts of the “Af-Pak” relationship, is not an encouraging one. “Pakistan is now considered the most fragile place in the world… It is the most unstable country and the most vulnerable to terrorist violence, political change or economic collapse,” he writes in his latest book, Pakistan on the Brink.

While it is not yet a failed state, Rashid admits that its multiple long-term and short-term problems seem “insurmountable by the present military and civilian leadership”.

Among the myriad problems are the corrupt and rundown bureaucracy, judiciary and police force and an elite that “lacks all sense of responsibility towards the public, refuses to pay taxes and is immeasurably corrupt”. There is no drinking water for a third of the population, no electricity for up to 16 hours a day and half the school-age children do not go to school, meaning “young men face a future of little promise and are ready to sign on to jihad”.

The judiciary is a “broken instrument incapable of handing down judgments to the real criminals” and retired intelligence officers spread conspiracy theories and blame America on a plethora of high-octane chat shows.

Meanwhile, the West cannot afford to continue the fight in Afghanistan and the question is, in the words of one anonymous Western ambassador, “will there be an Afghan army and civil service to take over when we leave, or will we just switch off the lights?”

Even if you’re optimistic the Afghan state will still be a “basket case” dependent on receiving more than $8 billion (£5 bn) in aid each year, Rashid points out.

Pakistan is not much better, having sought bail-outs from the IMF 11 times since 1988 and completed just one of their programmes (under General Pervez Musharraf in 2001) and remaining dependent on $4.8 billion (£3 bn) in foreign assistance. Debt servicing and defence take up 60 per cent of the Pakistani budget and growth was just 2.6 per cent last year, compared with around 7 per cent next door in India.

Pakistan on the Brink follows on from where Descent into Chaos (2008) – on David Cameron’s summer reading list for his shadow cabinet – left off. It provides a much-needed update on what has happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past four years, particularly the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the rapid breakdown of the US relationship with Pakistan and attempts to make peace with the Taliban.

Rashid is as critical of President Barack Obama’s approach to Afghanistan as he was of President George W Bush in his last book. It was clear that the US gambled on Hamid Karzai losing the 2009 presidential elections and by the time he won, the relationship had disintegrated almost beyond repair.

“Handling a wary president preoccupied with keeping his own head requires a personal touch,” Rashid says of his old friend, before adding that “Karzai was his own worst enemy” who failed to accept that corruption undermined his legitimacy.

The problem is that the leadership in Pakistan is no better. “For too long the military and the political parties have neglected their one single task, which is to make life better for their people,” he concludes.

Rashid’s thesis is that the military is in the driving seat, deciding policy, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, to the detriment of both nations. That ignores the theory that the military is, in the words of one analyst, “the only institution that really works in Pakistan”, as well as Nato’s Herculean efforts in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, if Pakistan follows its present chosen path – a “paranoid insecure” state which uses “extremists and diplomatic blackmail” – it will, he warns, “lose everything in Afghanistan”.

This excellent book summarises the challenges faced by both countries – although the solutions are difficult to see. A former Daily Telegraph correspondent in Pakistan, Rashid has an eye for the big picture as well as a journalist’s nose for detail.

Pakistan has enormous latent goodwill and expertise in a generation of young Britons with their roots in Pakistan. Like their neighbours across the Khyber Pass, they have spectacular natural beauty, plentiful natural resources, a strategic position for trade, an evocative history and a people with eyes that sparkle with untapped potential – if only their leaders had more vision.

Pakistan on the Brink: the Future of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the West

by Ahmed Rashid

256pp, Allen Lane, £18 (plus £1.25 P&P) Buy now from Telegraph Books (RRP £20, ebook £20)

Aurat means Vagina.. Women Before and After Islam. (via Sam Hindu’s Blog)

With new info.

Aurat means Vagina.. Women Before and After Islam. INTERESTING  FACTS EVERY WOMAN / GIRL SHOULD CONSIDER BEFORE GETTING INVOLVED WITH MUSLIM MAN, NO MATTER HOW MODERATE THEY SOUND.. SOME TIMES ; BY SAM HINDU Only thing Islam Invented is in the picture.. Oooops that is also infidel invention.. my mistake.. Women in Islam are seen as sexual beings. Every part of their body is thought to be erotic. Every square inch of her, is sexual. She must cover from head to toe, because her entire body is perce … Read More

via Sam Hindu's Blog

Autobiography Of Ali Sina. Why I Left Islam..

Autobiography Of Ali Sina. Why I Left Islam..


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.


Ali Sina Speaks and World Listens.


This interview was originally posted on ThouShallNotBearFalseTestimony.com

One of the most outspoken critics of Islam around the world these days is a Canadian man, Ali Sina, who is formerly a Muslim himself. He runs the Faith Freedom International movement. Ali Sina has some highly controversial positions concerning Islam and American president Barack Obama as well and he has recently come out with a book, Understanding Muhammad, which continues to stir things up. I found this man to be extremely provocative as well as interesting so I asked him for an interview so that he could share his own insight as to what Islam is at base and what is going on in the world today. The communication flowed as follows…

Gary Dale Cearley: Could you let us know a little about yourself and your background?

Ali Sina: I was born in a Muslim family. Today no one in my immediate family is a Muslim and I know that many of my extended family that is still living in Iran, like most Iranians, have either left Islam or are in the process of doing so. Many Iranians have just ceased to believe in Islam.

Since childhood, injustice harrowed my soul. I became vegan because cruelty pains me. Scenes of cruelty affect me profoundly. They still do, as they did when I was a child. Many young people react to injustice by becoming revolutionaries. They choose violent means to combat injustice and hence bring more injustice and violence to the world. I prayed to become an instrument of peace. To bring love where there is hate; understanding, where there is confusion; peace, where there is discord. That was of course all wishful thinking, when I myself was confused, trapped in a bubble of lies.

I pondered upon injustice and I believed it is caused by greed. Later I came to understand a lot of evil is committed, because of beliefs in evil doctrines. To quote Blaise Pascal, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

When I read the Quran, the whole meaning of Pascal’s words became apparent. It was then that I decided the time for prayer is over and the time for action has begun. Of course this awakening did not happen overnight. It took me two years of study, inner fight and soul searching. I was taken from denial to shock, and then to guilt and to confusion, to depression and to anger and finally to enlightenment, forgiveness and inner peace. It was an arduous odyssey, but worth making.

I started writing about my findings on the internet and more enlightened ex-Muslims joined. Our little trickle became a torrent and now we are a movement, bringing about a silent revolution, not with violence, but through understanding, by explaining the unexplained and spreading knowledge.

We have helped thousands of Muslims to discover the fallacy of Islam and join the rest of humanity in amity. My childhood prayer has come true. I have become an instrument of peace and I am not alone. We are now a legion that has risen to demolish the darkness of ignorance with the light of knowledge.

Gary Dale Cearley: You have written a book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet. Tell us about it.

Ali Sina: The book, as its title says, delves into the motives behind the actions of Muhammad. Muhammad is an enigma. He did many things that make one believe he was sincere. He gave the impression that he believed to be a prophet, while at the same time he was ruthless, cunning, and evil. So how can you explain this oxymoron? Was he a liar? If so how could he be so convinced?

In my book, Understanding Muhammad, I give a brief account of his biography. Muhammad’s life story is covered in many books and one can learn it from original sources called Sira. The concern of my book is the psychology of Muhammad.

Understanding Muhammad does not focus on “what,” but rather on “why.” Instead of narrating what Muhammad did or say, it explains the mental impulses that led him to act in the way he did.

I have shown that Muhammad suffered from a series of morbidities, mental, and personality disorders that collectively explain the phenomenon known as Islam. Once you understand the psychological makeup of Muhammad and the milieu in which he operated, you’ll come to see that Islam was almost inevitable.

The book does exactly what it claims. It makes the reader understand Muhammad and Islam. It has received encouraging reviews. Sam Vaknin, the author of Malignant Self-love wrote, “Understanding Muhammad offers an explanatory scheme. One “a-ha” moment chases another as things fall into place and a causative chain emerges leading all the way from medieval founder to his current day followers and emulators.” Once you read the book, you’ll not only understand Muhammad, but Muslims too.

This book has been read by many Muslims, who first wrote to me to prove I am mistaken. I challenged them to read the book and now many of them are my strong allies. I believe once the insight that this book offers spreads, Islam will become history and with it Islamic terrorism will ceases to exist.

Gary Dale Cearley: As you have become apostate in the eyes of Muslims, I am interested in what kinds of threats have you had from the Muslim community and from where have the threats come?

Ali Sina: When you leave Islam threats come from all directions. Your apostasy offends every Muslim who will each attack you in their own way. Some Muslims want to kill you but not every Muslim is a murderer. Those who do not issue a death threat snub you, pity you, and vilify you. I was informed that there are two fatwas to kill me from two mullahs in India. There was also a price put on my head: One million rupees. This is only $20,000 dollars. I was a bit disappointed. I thought I am worth more, but hey, it is more than 30 silver coins for which Christ was sold.

Gary Dale Cearley: What changes have you undergone within your own family since you renounced Islam?

Ali Sina: Not much really. My family was not fanatical. We were among those deluded believers who think Islam means peace and the terrorists have got it all wrong. It was quite a surprise for me to read the Quran and see that it were we who got it all wrong and the terrorists are just doing what a good Muslims is supposed to do.

The majority of Muslims belong to this category. They are deluded and think Islam is peaceful. They condemn the so called extremists. However, the truth is that the extremists are the ones who understand Islam best and the moderates don’t. The moderates believe in a benign form of Islam that is made up by them and has nothing to do with the Islam of Muhammad.

Gary Dale Cearley: Are you open with Muslims about having turned your back on Islam as a religion?

Ali Sina: I am not in contact with them anymore.

Gary Dale Cearley: If you could come face-to-face with Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, what would you like to tell them?

Ali Sina: The only message I would like to deliver to those beasts is a bullet in their sculls. My message to all Muslims is that Islam is a lie and they should not kill people or sacrifice their own lives for a lie. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but they all harbor distrust, if not hatred of non-Muslims, to the extent that they practice Islam.

Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, former vice president of Iran, with Pope Benedict XVI
 Islam is a faith that is built on hate. Without an enemy Islam loses its raison d’être. A good example to make is what happened recently in Iran. Ahmadinijad, the man who stole the elections appointed [Esfandiar Rahim] Mashai, a relative by marriage, as his vice president. Mashai’s nomination angered the hardliners and Khamanei was humiliated his own handpicked and protégée president and ordered him to dump Mashai. Why? Because last year Mashai said, “Iranians are friends of all people in the world — even Israelis.” He was serving as vice president in charge of tourism and cultural heritage at the time.”

By making this comment, even though he really did not mean it as he is part of the Islamic regime and shares the same hatred of Israel, Mashai had undermined the legitimacy of the Islamic republic that is founded on hatred and needs perpetual enemies for its own sustenancef. Not only that, he also undermined the legitimacy of Islam that is founded on hatred of non-Muslims and particularly the Jews. Islam needs enemies to survive. The hatred must be kept alive. Sigmund Freud wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents, “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness”

Muslims are united, as long as there are non-Muslims to hate. But once among themselves they will start fighting over who is a true believer and will target their hatred towards those who interpret Islam differently. As long as Islam is believed to be a religion of God the hatred will continue and the killing and wars will not end. So, really there is no other option but to expose the fallacy of Islam and wean Muslims from Islam.

This message cannot be heard by hardened terrorists. This message is for ordinary Muslims who don’t know the truth about Islam, who will be shocked to learn it. This mass of moderate Muslims is the backbone of Islamic jihad. The Jihadis come from these very ordinary Muslims and are supported by them both morally and financially. If we can make these Muslims see the truth Islamic terrorism will end.

Islamic terrorism is the fruit of Islam. It’s the tree that has to be eradicated. As long as this tree is in place it will continue to produce bitter fruits.

Gary Dale Cearley: How has the non-Muslim community accepted you?

Ali Sina: There is no problem with the non-Muslim community. Non-Muslims do not have the concept of “us vs. them” that is so intrinsic in Islamic psyche. I live in Canada. We are a nation of immigrants. We are all equals and asking someone about his or her religion is considered to be rude. No one cares what you believe. In Canada I am just another Canadian.

There are Muslims who feel alienated in Western countries. That is because they choose not to integrate. They want to wear their backward Islamic clothing, cover their women in black bed sheets, eat differently, act differently, think differently and denigrate the culture and the country where they live. It is natural not to be accepted if you are obnoxious. We have large communities of Hindus and Sikhs in Canada that are fully integrated, and are the backbone of the Canadian economy while Muslims, coming from the same neck of the woods, do not integrate. It is their fault that they don’t integrate. Western countries are open to all and sundry. People here are not prejudiced. They are learning to dislike Muslims and who can blame them?

Gary Dale Cearley: What advice do you have for Barack Obama and other leaders of Western nations in dealing with radical Islam?

Ali Sina: My advice to Barack Obama is to pack up and seek refuge in Kenya before Americans discover you are a fraud and a traitor.

This man is on a mission to destroy America. Polls show Americans are waking up and are realizing the big mistake they have committed. Obama is in office not because of his merits, but because of the white guilt. He hated America all his life. Tell me who are your friends and I will tell you who you are. Who were the friends of Obama? Jeremiah Write, Bill Ayer, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, and a bunch of other goons!

Who were his mentors when he was growing up? The pedophile Frank Marshal Davis and the black supremacist Malcolm X! I do not give advices to the enemies of America.

However, if America had a legitimate president, my advice would be ban Islam and make the practice of Sharia illegal.

During the Cold War America banned communism because communism was a threat to the Constitution of America. President Truman introduced the Federal Employee Loyalty Program (FELP) in 1947 aimed at combating security risks from working for the Federal Government. Every person taking on a new job in the civil service or government had to be investigated.

Congress set up the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) that investigated Communist involvement in the film industry, education, unions and the government. A couple, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage and selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets during the WW2 and rightly were executed. Yes, excesses were also committed. But it is a mistake to condemn America’s resolve to fight against its internal enemies because of those excesses.

Abdul Qadeer Khan made the “Islamic Bomb” possible…
 Maybe because of those excesses Americans have become guilt ridden to the extent that they have lost the will to defend their country in the face of a real threat. Remember how Pakistan got its nuclear bomb? It was because Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Muslim, was allowed to join the staff of the Physical Dynamics Research Laboratory (FDO) in the Netherlands and from there he stole the technology and went back to Pakistan to build the “Islamic bomb.” Muslims allegiance is only to Islam. You cannot trust them in sensitive jobs.

This July the Islamic extremist organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir, (Liberation Party) hosted its first organized conference in the United States, titled “Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam.” The conference, attended by 700 people, was hosted in Hilton Hotel in Chicago. Amazingly Hilton rejected an event featuring Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian that is fighting against Islamic expansion in the Europe. The goal of Hizb-ut-Tahrir is to overthrow the governments of the world and establish the caliphate, allegedly through non violent means. This group is banned in most Islamic countries, but it is allowed to operate in the USA and to openly promote the abolition of the American Constitution.

These people are right here in America and are given full immunity to plot the destruction of America. If there was a patriotic president in office, I would have told him to ban all Islamic groups that work against America and its constitution. But we don’t have a patriotic president. We have a racist man who hated America all his life and is doing everything he can to weaken its Judeo-Christian base and open the floodgate to Muslims. His bow and genuflection to the Saudi King, the head of the Wahhabi school of Islam should tell us everything about where Obama’s loyalty lies.

Anyone with commonsense knows that Islam is in war with America. What does Obama do? He appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts.

Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security
 Arif Alikhan is a devout Sunni Muslim. As assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Alikhan was instrumental in taking down the LA Police Department’s plan to monitor its Muslim community. He is affiliated with MPAC, the “Muslim Public Affairs Council”. This is like putting the fox in charge of the hen coop. Americans must prepare themselves for more terrorist attacks and the responsibility falls on Obama and of course every one of those who voted for this traitor.

Now, I don’t blame Obama. He is doing what he had dreamt to do since his youth and that is to destroy America. My wonder is at Americans who have handed their country to a buffoon enemy. Obama is not an intellectual. He is stupid. Obama lied and he deceived the gullible people. That is where narcissists excel. They are charming and convincing liars. We all commit mistakes. But why now that the truth has come out and it is clear that this impostor is working against America he is not sacked? Obama is not a legitimate president. Don’t let the biased lame stream media fool you. Facts are out there for those who care to study them. Obama should be brought to justice, tried and preferably electrocuted for high treason.

Anyway, back to your question: America has to confront Islam, recognize it as a hostile ideology and educate the public of the threat that it poses.

Gary Dale Cearley: Lots of people, from the man on the street to sociologists to politicians, have expressed concern regarding the growth of Muslim immigration to the West. Should they be concerned and if so what concerns should they have?

Omar Ahmad of CAIR
Ali Sina: Yes, they should be concerned. Muslims are not like other immigrants. They don’t want to integrate in your melting pot, but to conquer the country through demographic and warfare. Let us hearken to Omar Ahmad, Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who said

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth…”

“Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide, …They kill themselves for Islam.”

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!

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


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 civilized 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 offense is the location of the proposed Muslim community center 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.

%d bloggers like this: