Why the French should be commended, not condemned, for spearheading a ban on Islamic veil, a fundamentally criminal and oppressive Islamic tradition, as substantive step toward liberation of Muslim women...
A different version of this article, entitled France and the Burqa, appeared in Hudsonny.org.
The Islamic veil, called hijab, niqab or burqa etc., seen by critics as a sign of religious fundamentalism and a tool of suppression of Muslim women, has been banned by various institutions in France, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium. The move was spearheaded by France in 2004 by banning the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls in schools (also Christian Cross, Jewish skullcap & Sikh Turban) in order to keep state institutions free from religious symbols.
Taking a step further, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a rare speech to lawmakers of both Houses on June 22 this year, kicked up a further controversy by declaring the head-to-toe burqa “not a sign of religion” but of “subservience”, which will not be welcome in France, pointing to his intention of banning it in France.
Sarkozy’s comment ignited condemnations all over the world. Muslims claimed the comment ‘stigmatized’ Islam. Even President Barack Hussein Obama had, weeks earlier (June 4), indirectly condemned the limited ban on Muslim headscarves in various public institutions in certain European countries in his famous Cairo Speech, as thus:
“…it is important for western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”
Ignoring criticisms, which have even divided the French society, the Sarkozy administration has pursued an intended burqa ban by forming a parliamentary committee, consisting of 32 lawmakers, to investigate whether the wearing of burqa tramples Muslim women’s liberty and how the ban can be enacted.
The committee, after protracted investigation involving Muslim community leaders and intellectuals (including Tariq Ramadan), is about to deliver its verdict. And recent statements by leading French politicians suggest that a recommendation banning the burqa in public spaces is on the way.
President Sarkozy reaffirmed his commitment to banning the burqa in his November 12 speech on French national identity, saying: “France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women.”
The French immigration minister, Eric Besson, said on Wednesday, 16 December 2009, that he wants the head-to-toe Muslim veils to be grounds for denying citizenship and long-term residence to Muslims in France.
“I want the wearing of the full veil to be systematically considered as proof of insufficient integration into French society, creating an obstacle to gaining (French) nationality”, he said.
Meanwhile Jean-Francois Cope, a lawmaker and the Mayor of Meaux with a large Muslim population, belonging to Sarkozy’s conservative UMP Party, laid out the ‘rationale’ for the impending burqa ban in an article in La Figaro, saying that the measure should be understood as “a law of liberation”.
 Islamic veil liberates women? Muslims think so but only in their twisted logic. |
What is striking in Cope’s assertion is his terming the impending ban on burqa a “law of liberation”, which completely contradicts what Muslims and their non-Muslim apologists claim: that is, Islamic veil is a symbol of liberation, not suppression, for women.
Even Naomi Wolfe, a leading American feminist, affirmed this Muslim argument, saying: “Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze.”
She herself, having donned a headscarf in Morocco to experience its exhilarating liberation, which she described as thus: “…I moved about the market – the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me – I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.”
Wolfe quoted a Muslim woman: “When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to – and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.”
And Wolfe empathized: “This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings.”
What is surprising is the ridiculous way Muslims frame their arguments, and, surprisingly, the brightest feminists of our time are most eager to subscribe to it.
Every argument in this defence of the Islamic veil is ridiculous, but I will, here, address the central argument, namely wearing of veil as a means of avoiding men’s stare at the liberally-dressed women. I have come across other Muslim arguments as to how liberally-dressed women are “eye-raped” by men, how men make indecent gestures at them, or even how they may get carnally aroused to commit sexual violations, including rape.
It is bewildering to hear well-educated Muslims may think a woman can be eye-raped by men. However, the highest absurdity of this argument lies in the fact that men commit an unbecoming, indecent, even criminal, act and the women have to bear the consequence of it by taking responsibility of covering themselves up.
To a rational mind, men are at fault here; they should bear consequence. If at all, restrictions, veil or other such measures, should imposed on men, not on the well-behaved innocent women.
A woman’s body is her own property; she should have right to display it in the way she wants. Others, particularly men, must learn to restrain them from coveting, snatching, or touching other’s property, the body of a woman, in this case.
This is the ethos on which an ideal liberal civilized society must be based on. Islamic veil is a contravention of this central ethos of the modern liberal society. The French, or any other nations, would, therefore, be perfectly justified in banning the burqa.
What is important to realize is that Prophet Muhammad and Allah applied the same rationale, as Muslims use today, to impose veil on Muslim women 14 centuries ago. Muhammad, in line with the rather liberal Arab society, initially urged women dress modestly (Quran 24:30-31). Later on, he prescribed a complete head-to-toe covering of Muslim women in public spaces in Quran 33:59, which reads Allah’s command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers (i.e. of Muslims) to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed.”
Now, let us consider the context of this verse. It was revealed in 629 CE or later, when Muhammad had completely cleansed Medina of the Jews, by a combination of eviction and mass-slaughter, while his Muslim brigands were raiding one non-Muslim community after another around Arabia, often slaughtering the men, enslaving the women, and plundering their wealth. As concerns enslavement of the infidel women to be used as sex-slaves or sold, recommended by Allah in the Quran (verse 33:50), Muhammad had already captured the women of Banu Quraiza, Banu al-Mustaliq and Khaybar after slaughtering their men.
So, who were the purported molesters, as pointed to in this verse, from whose molestation Allah wanted to save the Muslim women by imposing the burqa?
The molesters were obviously Muslim men, because non-Muslims would not dare annoying Muslim women, when Islam had gained supreme power in Arabia. Indeed, it is the non-Muslim women, who were living in constant fear of Muslim raids upon their community, their enslavement and rape. Moreover, if non-Muslims were the culprits, which could occur only at a time of Muhammad’s weakness, it was unwise of Allah to prescribe wearing of veils to Muslim women, making them more conspicuous, and therefore, more vulnerable to molestation.
Therefore, Muhammad imposed burqa on Muslim women to save them from his own sex-crazed Muslim men, whose criminal intent toward molesting women was undoubtedly aroused to its height by Muhammad’s inspiration and engagement in ceaseless raids on non-Muslim communities for capturing their women for subjecting them to rape and sexual slavery.
The Islamic tradition of veiling was, therefore, founded as a punishment of Muslim women for the crime of Muslim men: it’s a policy of punishing the victim, not the criminal.
And exactly the same arguments are used by Muslims today, as we have seen. Such institutions, fundamentally criminal in nature, are totally unacceptable in civilized society.
And the French government is perfectly right in banning the burqa; indeed, the French or any other government has a moral and legal responsibility of doing so. It is because the responsibility of a liberal government, as leading liberal ideologue Albert Einstein argued, is “to insure the unhindered development of the individual”.
Burqa is not only a criminal institution at its heart, but also a denial to unhindered expression and development of the Muslim women, a half of the society, for the criminality of the other half, the men.
Burqa almost entirely anonymizes women and reduces them to nonentity in society. Only criminals would seek anonymity, but only partially, i.e. only for their specific criminal actions.
Therefore, fundamentally, behind every burqa resides a wrong incriminated criminal, as well as a nonentity, not a human individual, whose right to freedom and liberty to enjoy every privilege in every sphere of life and society in equal measure with men is ensured in the human rights chartered of the United Nations and the constitutions of liberal Western societies.
President Sarkozy underlined this reality, in support of his intended ban on burqa, saying: “We cannot have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity.”
All conscientious people, foremost the liberals, must support the French initiative to ban the burqa, the first step toward liberation of Muslim women from the clutches of men, lasting 14 centuries since the founding of Islam.
The French deserve kudos, not condemnation as President Obama, the idol of the world’s liberals, has done by saying: “We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”
For President Obama, as an icon of liberalism and leader of the world’s leading nation promoting liberalism globally, it becomes his foremost responsibility to uphold liberal values. And ensuring unhindered expression of the individual and upholding her/his freedom and liberty, no matter what, lie at the heart of liberalism.
Islamic veil violates the most fundamental ethos of liberalism, not of one or two individuals, but of entire half of the Muslim society, in its grossest form. Obama may ignore his foremost responsibility, but his condemnation or stigmatization of others, for taking up that responsibility, is unacceptable.
Islam subjugated and oppressed non-Muslims, called dhimmis, as well as its women. The West, including the French, spearheaded the liberation of the dhimmis of the Islamic world, in the so-called age of colonialism by direct intervention or through diplomatic pressure (e.g. Iran and Turkey). But the fate of oppressed Muslim women remained largely unchanged as colonial powers avoided intervening in the private affairs of Muslims.
Yet, Muslim women experienced bits of liberation, under indirect influence of liberal thoughts brought to the Muslim world by the colonists and under their protection. The Westernized Shah of Iran, for example, even banned veiling of women in the 1930s. But, it is being taken away from them in the post-colonial world.
It appears obvious that Muslim societies won’t liberate their women, despite so much passive influence flowing in from the liberal West for so long. A direct intervention from without is what remains to be tried. It works or not, the French ban on burqa would constitute a substantive effort in liberating Muslim women. Good thing is that they are not doing it not as a discredited colonial power, but to uphold the human rights of its individual citizens, demanded by its constitution.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by The Grand Kaffir of Infidelistan , December 28, 2009
written by MM Khan , December 28, 2009
You are so confused and liar Mr. Khan. The Banu al-Mustaliq and Khaybar were not enslaved; instead they were banned from Arabia. Banu Quraiza agreed to stay and signed a treaty with the Muslims not to fight or the Muslims or to align with the enemies of the Muslims. It was only after the battle of the trench and after Banu Quraiza were clearly involved with the Meecans in their invasion and siege on Median Preophet Muhammed ordered their killing after he consulted their leader on what he should do with them and they nominated a man who was a former Jewish and who judged them with the rule of their own law. You know this sir but instead
written by MM Khan , December 28, 2009
Please do not tell me Muslim countries do not publish statistics or Muslim hide this.
The truth to the matter and the only reason Mr. Sarkozy raised his voice this time is because he wants to win populace support for his stand on Muslims specifically Muslim immigration. We have a saying in Arabic “Came does not see how crooked his neck is but see all other” Yes Sarkozy talked about preserving the so called freedom of women and women rights but forgot to tell us or to expose what the great so called Western civilization has done to women. You know the results and you publish them but you refuse to link them to their source. Much of the decline in birth in the west and the lack of moralities which have done nothing but harmed the family and the society as whole can only be blamed on the high standards of moralities that the west have enjoyed over the Muslims. Indeed.
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 28, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20
pls chk this peaceful islam video.it proves islam is most
pissful religion of all.
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 28, 2009
let french do what they want.after all its their internal matter.
if saudi bans other religion no one ever says anything bcoz
it is saudi internal matter.
when muslims massacared 25000 infidels in kashmir india in 1984
no one bothered.
but if infidels break a masjid which was built on an infidel
temple then everyone all muslims unite against infidels in 1992.
it shows the muslim hipocracy.
so let france do what they want,if they want to ban islam
i will support it.
after all saudi has banned other religion.
so why we shud stop france from banning islam ??
all those who dont agree,go back to saudi arabia u will
be honoured citizens there.
al ham dull ill aaallll
there is no dog by alla and pigmuhamed is his poo
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 28, 2009
in a website abt some florida security,[usa],i read than pisslims
openly say on t-shirts :
" 2030 then we take over white women will be war booty "
why still people dont understand that pisslam will destroy
all world culture to establish stone age back for imaginary
award of imaginary houries ??
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 29, 2009
http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/65124-2030-then-we-take-over-reads-popular-t-shirt-worn-muslims-stockholm.html
on this and other sites muslims say:
"2030 then we take over", "white women r war booty" etc.
very shocking. just google and find out. pisslam ends to be banned now.
written by M.A. Khan , December 29, 2009
1) Khaybar: After the victory at Khaybar, ‘their warriors (fighting-age men) were killed; the children and women were taken was captives’ [Bukhari 2:14:68]. ‘The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims’ [Ibn Ishaq, Life Muhammad, Karachi, p. 515].
2) Mustaliq: Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives. [Bukhari 3:46:717]
3) Banu Quraiza: There was no confirmation, as you claim, of Banu Qiraiza's helping the Quraish in the battle of Trench. Allah gives following reason to justify the attack on them [Quran 33:26]:PICKTHAL: And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.How can Banu Quraiza fight alongside Quraish sitting in their strongholds/fortress/homes? It’s only possible in Islamic logic, absolute rubbish.
SHAKIR: And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.
And following account of initiation of the attack on Banu Quraiza comes from Sirat Rasul Allah [Ibn Ishaq, p. 461]:
According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he said that he had he said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. 'God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B. Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.'
The prophet ordered it to be announced that none should perform the afternoon prayer until after he reached B. Qurayza. The apostle sent `Ali forward with his banner and the men hastened to it.
Here too, no confirmation or connection of their fighting alongside Quraish has been made. What is known from Islamic sources is that the Quraish asked for assistance, but Banu Quraiza never joined the fighting.
written by straight up , December 29, 2009
To be robbed of the sunlight and wind, which is freely given to all people of the earth, is a very great crime.
There is a valley. It is very dark, no sunlight or light of any kind. It is also cold and only rocky ground to be found. No escape is there.
People reside there, but not happy people.
If they will not share the sunlight here, they have gifted themselves with the dark there. They have not chosen wisely for themselves.
Muslims are the worst thieves on earth. To steal the very sunlight from others.
written by Machmoed elchalid , December 29, 2009
written by The Grand Kaffir of Infidelistan , December 29, 2009
written by Machmoed elchalid , December 29, 2009
The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims’ [Ibn Ishaq, Life Muhammad, Karachi, p. 515].
Their men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives.
What if this story is true as muslims believe it happened...how can you still believe Allah is like this. What if you lived in those days and you would be a memeber of one of these jewish groups and then a man calls himself the prophet and if you deny this the sword will chat with you and then your father, brothers would be killed and then your mother and sister(s) will be sold or worse.
I'm sorry but this is really insane. It's not only these stories...there are so many lies and deceptions.
written by Joaher , December 29, 2009
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/06_umar_bin_al_khattab.htm
written by SALMA , December 29, 2009
The trouble with you Mr. Khan is that you are a walking devil, you know the truth but you want to hid it or illustrate to the readers something else as if that is going to hurt Islam or Muslims.
For your information sir, after 911 when many devils like you thought the image of Islam has been permanently damaged more people in the United States converted to Islam than before. There was a statistics done where almost 20,000 people were converting to Islam each year, and to you unfortunate expectations the majority of those converts were women.
That is because they went on to explore what Islam was all about and found that Islam is not what the media portray it and surly not what some people have done in the name of Islam. Instead they were amazed that Islam is superior to any other faith on earth and indeed the only true faith that will lead man to heaven and to the almighty Allah.
written by David , December 29, 2009
get real- how many of those that sympathetically converted to islam converted back? what is that statistic? why dont you post that?
another muslim hypocrite living in the west. go back to the land of your muslim ancestors, if you have that much faith in islam. go ahead. show us how living in a muslim land is 'peaceful' and 'fulfilling' and 'safe' for your children.
go ahead- we are waiting.
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 29, 2009
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
imaginary allah is not world creator.ls chk this site.the so called
intelligent creator of universe is not allah.
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 29, 2009
salma and otehr pisslims,
all true humans will puke at the crude and anti humanity koran.
bow to gansgter allah/mohamed or they put u in imaginary
eternal hell forever.this is the same gangster message of all
hate based monoatheist ideology.
imaginary allah is not god of universe,nor creator.why
shud we bow to him ???
koran has lot of scientific error,which is proven.so also
koran voilated equality and human rights laws.men get
virgins in imaginary jannat what do women get ???
same old guy ??
this is injustice.
the list is endless.leave pisslam i mean islam,and become human beings.
written by Machmoed elchalid , December 29, 2009
written by COMMON SENCE , December 29, 2009
In the past a man (particularly muslims) would marry any number of women and women would not complain, Muhammad himself married many young girls when he was above 50, it was because women were considered emotionless and brainless creatures just to serve muslim men. For that women are also to be blamed. Today an educated woman will never accept her husband to marry another woman in her presence for any reason.
Before Islam khadija was a successful businesswoman and muhammad worked for her but after islam we do not see any woman playing any role for centuries for their own betterment, rather they have been made sex slaves and kind of machines for reproduction.
West gave women liberty, equality to men for education, work, sports, and do whatever they want to do. This is why we see woman playing a role for the society as well as thier own betterment in the society.
Also we have observed that wherever it is co-education in the institutions in islamic countries (although islam prohibits women to even see unknown men) the attitude of men is more refined and sober towards woman and at the same time there is a progressive competition. Same is the case with any other institution or walk of life.
Coming back to dressing, educated women and educated men should wear modest dress as per the situation and respect each others freedom. Extremes are always unacceptable and dangerous.
written by Machmoed elchalid , December 29, 2009
He knows the truth indeed. The truth is that the great prophet when killed the jews, he liked one woman in particular and on the day her husband was killed by the muslims, she had to sleep with the prophet the same day....Wow...he is the greatest and allah is really arrahmaan arrahiem...to muslims. But a satan to non-muslims. Are you going to say this is a lie..are you going to say that the woman wanted to sleep with the man that killed her husband. This is what makes islam bad..it's not an imaginary deity but the actions of humans like the prophet. His sayings and deeds are not in line with eachother. He got bigger and richer by selling slaves and steal from others and the qor'aan seems to agree. Ofcourse the qor'aan agrees..it's mostly his.
written by Clement , December 29, 2009
Medina and founder of Islamic terrorism which ignorant and religious apologist wrapped as a religion to deceive nearly1.4billon people. The Bible is not in want of many pious and good prophets worthy of emulation. If these people really want to follow a prophet should they go fo a terrorist, a mass murderer, a rapist, a child abuser and a pirate? Can't these people see that Mohammed was a fake, and false prophets.why not go for Abraham,Moses,Samuel, Isiah,Ezekiel. Jeremiah, John or Jesus? Can't they see the fruits of islam all over the world as evils and bad and not worthy to be called a religion? I wish I could revived the reasoning portion of these people's brain which has been attacked and destroyed by the virus of Islam.
written by Steve , December 29, 2009
written by vbv , December 29, 2009
written by karan , December 29, 2009
Islam in the guise of "just another religion" is eroding our principles of democracy and plurality.It must be stopped now !!! We must send a STRONG message to the HEART-LAND of ISLAM aka MIDDLE-EAST that non-muslims are prepared to stand up for our principles and fight for it.
The stupid politicians should also stop saying that ISLAM as a peaceful religion.ISLAM is a religious version of NAZISM.
NEXT step BAN all SAUDI FUNDED MOSQUES AND SCHOOLS which are the breeding ground of terrorists
written by Wondering , December 29, 2009
/wɔːr//wɔːr/ n [C or U]
• armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this
jihad noun
/dʒɪˈhæd/ n
• [C or U] a holy war which is fought by Muslims against people who are a threat to the Islamic religion or who oppose its teachings
Folks lets keep this simple, and deal only with facts.
Islam has decided that war is how they want to conduct their business.
We in the west did not start this conflict, Islam did.
We in the west don't conduct Piracy on the High Seas, Islam does.
We in the west do not use car bombs to strike at people leaving a Church or other place of prayer, Islam does.
We in the west do not keep slaves or sell women in the market place, Islam does. We in the west do not place explocive devices on civilian airplanes, Islam does. We in the west do not follow a 'holy book' that urges the death of Christians and Jews, Islam does.
We in the west do not want riots in the streets of Paris or Terahan, Islam does.
We in the west do not want to live as slaves because of our faith, Islam does.
We in the west are slow to anger, but we are waking up, Islam be warned.
We in the west do not fear the Moon God Allah, Islam does.
See a pattern here, I urge people of the Islamic faith to stop doing evil things. We are nearing the tipping point, soon just owening an oil field will not insure your safety or income. Alternative fuels are comming on line every day, soon we will not need their oil. Petro dollars are the head of the snake, cut off the head and the snake will die.
We in the west are not going to fund this war on our familys much longer, and then 1.6 Billion followers of Islam will have to find ways of eating sand and oil, good luck with that, for soon Islam wont have a friend anywhere in the world.
written by Healer_999 , December 29, 2009
Or we infidels are afraid of their religious fervor? I read this some where. The truth is , as Huntington put it elegantly, Islam will remain Islam definitely and west remaining west is highly dubious. After all Islam has many friends. Their best allies are leftists, so called liberals, broadsheet media and women from other faiths. These women tend to get impressed by their prayer 5 days with out ever thinking is it required. Some get impressed by how some Muslim men are killing them selves.
Mostly majority of them just do not care and just emotional. You see every thing is to their advantage.
But what they(Muslims) don't know is their incapability to comprehend science. For them science is just for weapons, nuclear. If a deadly virus comes up they themselves become prey.
Either way Humanity is doomed. Global warming. Unknown viruses. And this virus called Islam. Which way humanity will end? one's guess.
written by Kohi , December 29, 2009
written by Mo-Suck , December 29, 2009
your times a' comin slime
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/contempt_detonates_aussie_arabic_future/
We are beginning to organise some folks down here after many tries, seems like we're (I have been a while) finally waking up to the reality of islime
We have a "coffee club" :)
I like to tell folks about your and many blogs that are available to the realists.
written by berq to wondering , December 29, 2009
written by Tom Billesley , December 29, 2009
(a burqa is like a niqab but with black mesh over the letter-box shaped eye hole - sometimes the burqa clad woman also wears a frame a bit like a spectacle frame but holding the cloth away from her nose and mouth, very Darth Vaderish).
What you should understand about Islam is that it is all about the men. In Christian culture, if a man is inappropriately and excessively aroused by the sight of a woman's hair or face it is his problem that he should seek to supress (in some creeds his sin that he should confess to god). In Islamic culture it is (of course) always the woman's fault (that is why Islamic hell is populated mostly by women) - and the men cannot be expected to restrain their urges (wouldn't that would be totally unreasonable ?).
The only women in western Christian culture who generally cover their hair are those wearing a nun's habit i.e. women who have a special celibate role in religion - and they don't cover their faces. A cultural remnant of the "hair covering" is the habit of some women of wearing a hat while in a church in contrast to men who remove a hat if they are wearing one.
written by Syrixs Selexis , December 29, 2009
written by vbv , December 29, 2009
written by Ibn Kammuna , December 29, 2009
You need to know your history before leveling accusations against a researcher of truth; M A Khan. If you read his book on Islamic Jihad, You will appreciate the level of depth in history he strives for before making claims.
Mr. MM, you are a Liar like your unholy profit- Muhammad (PBUH, the P stands for Piss0.
You can read M A khan's comment above to see how much of a liar you are. You just want to make cheap shots.
I myself Ibn Kammuna have published articles in Islam Watch and in FaithFreedom.org about the Massacre of Bani Qurayza, the cheap attack on Bani Almustaliq, The killing of Khayber leader because Muhammad wanted more treasure that he did not have. I also published articles on Muhammad's assassinations of Asma Bint Marwan and the killing of an old man just because he said something Muhammad did not like.
MM, Muhammad was a lowly thug who got lucky in an age of barbarity. Yet, here you are in the twenty first century trying to defend an evil man who lived 1400 years ago. Amazing....Good luck with your life. Do read some of my research articles when you get a chance. Maybe..just maybe, you will see the light...
Peace to all
written by North Africa , December 29, 2009
So you asked us to read Mr. MA Khan’s book. Oh is it a copy of Ali Sina book on Prophet Muhammad?
I read lots of books about Islam and your own pagan cross worshipping faith and others and Alhumdellah I thank Allah for the gift called Islam and really wish you all to see the light and never burn in the hell fire. Allah will only guide those whom he wishes but it always starts with you sir.
written by Tom B... , December 29, 2009
hahahahaha
such tools, to think that anyone with any sense would dress like that because their men are animals.
Drop the Bomb Take the Oil
written by COMMON SENCE , December 29, 2009
Ali (muhammad son in law) didnt marry another girl until Fatima was alive. Once she died ali married all the girls he could put his hand on.
Every muslim dreams to live in non muslim countries, educate their children in non muslim countries (including muslim scholars and mullahs), work with non muslim companies (not a single educated muslim you find who wants to live and work in saudi arabia).
Muslim men want their women to wear burqa in non muslim countries. Muslim men would go to night clubs, brothels, drink and fck any creature they can (if they can) put their hands on.
my observation is that mostly muslim women/ girls who are un attractive (plain faced) tend to hide themselves behined hijab/ niqab/ burqa or whatever. Living in dubai i can see many muslim women mothers in niqab/hijab/abaya and their teenage daughters walking along in jeans and T-shirts whithout any coverings.
Muslims are strange creatures..
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 30, 2009
when u know u r not wlecome u shud return to yr parent country,without wasting time and be proper muslim in yr own country rather than in adopted country.
better still go to saudi arabia and wear hijab, nakab, etc and live happily there.
pls stop going to infidel lands if u r real muslims
and return back to saudi arabia if u r e true muslims, or yr imaginary allah will burn u in imaginary hell forever.
if saudi make rules muslims dont fight it,bcoz its
saudi internal matter,but if france make rules
muslims shout themself hoarse.
IT IS FRANCE INTERNAL MATTER IF THEY WANT TO
BAN HIJAB AND ISLAM IT IS THEIR INTERNAL MATTER.
muslims shud not proetst france if they ban hijab
and islam bcoz its their internal matter.
written by LASHKAR EI TOIBA , December 30, 2009
FRANCE CAN BAN ISLAM AND HIJAB ITS THEIR INTERNAL MATTER.
saudi has banned all other religion other than islam and no one
is allowed to protest.
then why muslims protest if france ban hijab and islam ??
let france do what they want.if muslims dotn like
it they can migrate to their original homeland arab
desert.
this will prove muslims r true believers.
so muslims pls with immediate effect goback to
arab desert.
france can do anything it is their internal matter.
written by Agusto , December 30, 2009
written by Agusto , December 30, 2009
written by NSC London , December 30, 2009
written by Mo-Suck , December 31, 2009
I'm happy to report that Rifqa's latest hearing (22/12) had good results.
Two major issues- mediation with parents and Christmas cards ruled in favour of Rifqa.
The Columbus Dispatch reporter Meredith Heagney and Jamal Jivanjee (Rifqa's friend) are my sources for this article.
Jamal commented that in Florida, where Rifqa fled to, many of her supporters were allowed to attend the courtroom sessions. Not so in Ohio. About 30-40 supporters had gathered at the Franklin County Juvenile court expecting to attend the case. An hour before the hearing Rifqa was informed that only ONE supporter would be allowed and she chose Jamal.
“ The CAIR appointed attorney for Rifqa's parents filed a motion asking the court to force mediation between Rifqa and her parents. The reasoning for wanting this mediation is because Rifqa's parents believe that Rifqa is misguided about the true nature of Islam as well as their own intentions towards her. Rifqa's attorney, Kort Gatterdam, replied that after SEVEVTEEN years of living with her family, she was very well aware of their intentions towards her. Magistrate Mary Goodrich denied the motion to force this visit.”
THAT WAS ONE VICTORY.
“The next major order of business was discussing the motion filed on 1st December by Rifqa's parents to deny her any contact with third parties (not approved by the parents).
This included Christmas cards that were being sent to her via her attorneys. Before Magistrate Mary Goodrich could deny the motion Omar Tarazi withdrew it.”
ANOTHER VICTORY!
The slant that Meredith Heagney is taking is disgusting.
“In July, Rifqa ran away and moved in with two pastors – a married couple- in Orlando,Florida; whom she had met on the internet.”
Yeah...as if its their fault Rifqa ran away in the first place!
The parents have an “unruly” charge against her, claiming she was “unruly” because she fled from home. It is interesting though, the date the parent's chose was when Rifqa was actually in Florida, Jamal says. So, Omar Tarazi wanted to change the date to an earlier one but the Magistrate decided to deal with that issue at the next hearing. Set for 19th January.
Jamal also hopes that the dependency issue will be discussed then as Rifqa is seeking to become a dependent of the state of Ohio. This will allow her to stay in foster care until she is 18 next August, which we all hope will be safer than being reunited with her family.
It is really looking positive...Keep on praying people!
written by The Grand Kaffir if Infidelistan , December 31, 2009
written by Mo-Suck , December 31, 2009
It is looking positive for her now.
I was wondering about this clot dude....
He seems yo have it in for me...I didn't vote for George Bush?
In fact I haven't voted for a dem nor repub since Reagans 1st term...after that Libertarians only.
I WILL NOT vote for bad or worse.
Get my point?
I only think mobama could do a hell of a lot more for the people of the country rather than shackle my grand-children with debt for programs that don't /aren't working?
And he could stop bowing and apologising for me, and the rest of America.
And he could listen to the majority of the people, and serve like he's supposed to.
But I am not worried, cause like I told NSC...time will tell.
nuff said
Rifqa is the start of something...I imagine many young mussie girls are looking at what she's doing and have hope for themselves now.
They'll apostate in droves once they figure out that there is a world out there to explore.
written by Clement , January 01, 2010
Do you know that you will have no one to blame if you, at the end could not make it to Heaven? Not even Mohammed will you blame,because he had clearly told you in Q 10:95 that , “And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee(the Christians and Jews.)” Why is Allah ordering his prophet to learn from Christians? Why is the Islamic prophet so ignorant? Has Allah and Muhammad got no shame to ask Christians when stuck for answers? The truth was that Mohammed knew that his poetic recitals cannot take anyone to heaven. That was why he tactically made to order this verse as usual from his imaginary Allah so as to free himself from the guilt of leading anyone astray. And truly there are many doubtful verses in the Quran that you need to get clearance from Christians before believing them. Such verses like the Medina verses (all of them) should be discarded if you really want to go heaven and secondly you must believe Jesus as your savior. Your knowledge of Jesus as revealed in the Quran is not enough to appropriate the gift of eternal life that is in him. If you need more clarification on any doubtful Quranic revelation as commanded by Allah in the above mentioned verse, please call on me on +2348057328701, +2348039471364 or email me on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Please note this consultancy service is free of charge. Cheers.
written by Kohi , January 01, 2010
I don't understand why people who are that extremely islamic bother immigrating to Europe."
Why is right cuz if they love the sandfly life and it is so great GO BACK TO IT!!!! Leave the human race to go forward.
written by Mulhid , January 02, 2010
As for the gorgeous muslim lady Salma, a Hayek look alike undoubtedly, (who will certainly become a houri, pious as she is, when she will enter Janna.) About women like you there is written:
Sahih Bukhari 4:544: Allah's Apostle said, 'The first group of people who will enter Paradise? Their wives will be Houris. All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in stature), sixty cubits tall.'
Ibn Majah, 5:4337 Allah’s Messenger said: “Allah will not admit anyone into Paradise but Allah, the Mighty and glorious will marry him with 72 wives, Every one of them will have a pleasant vagina and he (the man) will have sexual organ that does not bend down during sexual intercourse.”
Ibn Ishaq’s sira was the oldest source of information about al insane al kamil, your bogus prophet Muhammad the mass murderer. All other Muslim historians like Ibn Sa’d and Al Tabari made use of the Sirat Rasul Allah.
You said “That is because they went on to explore what Islam was all about.” Where do they explore Islam if not in those books?”
Islam is not superior. Islam is the soul responsible factor for the existence of the backward hellholes of Dar al Islam.
written by Religion is for the weak! , January 02, 2010
