Monday, November 8, 2010

Prophet to Pagans, while in Mecca, "I will bring slaughter to you"; Muslims Call this Tolerance and Non Violent

When media was reporting about spate of fatwas being issued by Deobandi Islamic clerics, in June and July, an Indian Muslimah realizing that these kind of reports could create a misconception and bad opinion of Islam in public, but not as such worried about those fatwas and about those who issued them, wrote an article; our media always eager to show real Islam, they believe to be or wanted it to be, happily published this article. This is what author, Ms. Sadia Dehlvi, wrote in that article; an excerpt from it:
“Interestingly, two-thirds of the Quran was revealed in the Meccan phase before the Prophet's migration to Medina. The Meccan revelations largely consist of spiritual narratives calling Muslims to non-violent resistance. This took place at a time when Muslim men and women were being tortured and killed for no reason other than accepting Islam. Soumayya, a woman who was tortured to death under the blazing sun, became the first martyr of Islam.
This is what many Muslims and their apologists say, interesting that these people do not substantiate by giving credible evidence, in order to justify what took place later in Medina. Nevertheless this type of erroneous information, if not out right lies (only in this case), has its effects on people’s thinking.

I myself was subjected to such thinking; Prophet fought only 3 wars and they are also defensive in nature. Islam prescribed polygamy, limited to 4 wives, because in those days Men died in battles and many women were being left out as widows; so, to address this problem Islam prescribed polygamy. And I believed in these kind of stories put in by media. My understanding of Islam, until recently, entirely came from what Media has written.

Compare these with actual recordings. Prophet fought in or ordered about 84 wars in just 10 years (3 versus 84, 28 fold); which turns out to be one war in every five (1/2) weeks. Similarly polygamy has no relation to war and widows at all; it is Muslims who are taking women as sex slaves, whether married or unmarried, whether their husbands are alive or dead. Sanctioning of polygamy is just continuation of Arabic culture and practice. Suppression of women and relegating them to secondary status is in tune with overall philosophy of Islam i.e. a fascist system and expansionism by any means. Islam is a mixture of Arabian pre Islamic pagan culture and Abrahamic theology.

Returning to Ms Dehlvi’s writing, “This took place at a time when Muslim men and women were being tortured and killed for no reason other than accepting Islam.

In the first part of her sentence, she uses the words in plural, ‘men’ and ‘women’, yet she gives only one name of victim, in her words she was a martyr, in the end. Why? Because there were none. Read any Islamic source like Ishaq’s sira or Tabaris’s history of Islam or even Ibn Saad’s you will find this. Tabari does not even mention this incident of Soumayya being killed although he used the work of Ishaq’s sira for reference. Ibn sa’ad is the only one who mentions this. Sir William Muir, an Islamic scholar, discredits this story.

Sure, sira (Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, first authentic biography of Prophet Mohammad.) mentions this indirectly with a writing ‘they killed his mother’; one kind of punishment adopted by Meccans was to make people stand in the sun; so it is likely that she died later of those effects unlike many Islamic stories, if not the story of Ms. Dehlvi here, saying that she was pierced with a spear by Abu Jahl (originally she was his slave). When one understands the chronology of incidents, it becomes clear what really happened.

Even if we take this as real, in total, one Muslim died in Mecca during 13 years of Mohammad’s preaching and Muslims depict this as a near genocide. Revisionist theory of Quraysh (Meccans) as savages is part of Islamic propaganda. Later, when Mohammad was in Medina, he simply orders killing of people for the simple reason that they criticize him.

Inventing lies about Quraysh is not limited to torturing and killing. Look at the next part, “..... For no reason other than accepting Islam.” She is implying that fact of some folks in Mecca accepting Islam was the sole reason for discord between Meccans and Muslims; Prophet was innocent and Quraysh were intolerant savages, she meant.

But we have read already in the last post about one of the problems between Prophet and Meccans i.e. Prophet Mohammad abusing Gods of Quraysh (Meccans, Pagans), according to an Islamic website it self:
“We shall give you so much of wealth that you will become the richest man of Makkah; we shall give you whichever woman you like in marriage; we are prepared to follow and obey you as our leader, only on the condition that you will not speak ill of our gods.
Now, it should occur to any brain that when Meccans were torturing and killing Muslims, like Ms. Dehlvi claimed, why would Meccans offer such inducements to stop him from abusing their Gods? Meccans simply could kill him as they were torturing and killing other Muslims and Mohammad was with only few followers.
Similarly, the opposition to Islam (Prophet Mohammad) came from Meccans for not wanting to accept the leadership of Mohammad, who was living on his wife’s wealth.

The narrations, website’s boasting and Ms. Dehlvi’s, are wrong; they were invented to glorify Mohammad and present pagans as cruel and savage. While what the Islamic website says is illogical but what Ms. Dehlvi claims is outright lie. Sure Meccans many times tried to settle the dispute with Prophet peacefully but to of no avail. In all these it was Meccans who started negotiations. All they ever wanted was stopping of abusing by Mohammad. But facts like this are overlooked and are regularly concealed by Muslims.

To start with, Meccans hated Prophet, his message and more than any thing his ways and dealings. But persecution of Muslims has not started immediately after so called revelations from Allah came to Mohammad; actually at that time, God, the source of his revelation, was not even identified; when he did identify later it turned out be none other than God of Pagans, Allah, itself; strange right. He himself didn’t know how he should call his source of revelation. But this was not the point of discussion here.

Early in to Prophetic career of Mohammad, this is what Ishaq and Tabari write:
"During the Jahiliyyah (Pre Islamic Times) I came to Mecca and stayed with Abbas bin Muttalib. The sun rose while I was looking at the Ka'aba. A young man (Muhammad) came up and gazed at the sky. He turned to face the Ka'aba. Soon after, a woman (Khadija, Prophet’s wife) and a youth (Ali, 4th caliph of Islam) came and stood behind him. The young man bowed and the woman and youth bowed; then the man stood erect, followed by the woman and youth. The young man prostrated himself, and they did the same. Abbas asked, 'Do you know what this is?' 'No.' I answered. 'This is Khadija, my nephew's wife. He has told me that his Lord has commanded them to do what you see them doing. Allah’s oath, I do not know anyone on the face of the earth but these three who follow this religion.'"I asked Abbas, 'What is this religion?' He answered, 'This is Muhammad bin Abdallah, who claims that Allah has sent him as His Messenger with this religion and that the treasures of Chusroes and Caesar will be given to him by conquest.'" (Tabari, vol 6, page 82)
"When I was a merchant I came to Mecca during the hajj pilgrimage. While I was there a man came out to pray and stood facing the Ka'aba. I asked, 'What is their religion? It is something new to me.' Abbas said, 'This is Muhammad who alleges that Allah has sent him with it so that the treasures of Chusroes and Caesar will be open to him. The woman is his wife Khadija who believes in him." (Ishaq’s sira, page 113)
In the very beginning itself, Mohammad knew what he wanted and what he was going to do. More than anything he coveted power and respect, no matter how they came. For first 3 years, Mohammad preached his new religion in private; then he went public asking it to recognize him as messenger from God. For next 2 or 3 years, as such, Mohammad wasn’t finding great success in his mission and then he resorted to abusing Pagans of Mecca:
When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods.  When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq, page 118)
First, Meccans reported this to his uncle Abu Talib, who was powerful and influential (probably in the year 616 AD):
"Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you stop him or let us get to him. For you, like us, are in opposition to him. He gave them a conciliatory reply”. They returned a second time and said, “We have asked you to put a stop to your nephew's activities but you have not done so. By Allah, we cannot endure having our fathers reviled and our customs mocked.(Ishaq, page 119)
Meccans went to Abu Talib and said, 'Your nephew (Muhammad) has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values, and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are as opposed to him as we are.....he (Prophet) continued as before."
Meccans went to Talib once again. They said, “We asked you to forbid your nephew from attacking us, but you did nothing. By Allah, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values, and this abuse of our gods. You are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god."
We are told: "This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Abu Talib." (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 93.)
Abu Talib said to Muhammad, “Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining about you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other.” The Allah’s Apostle said, “Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. (There is no ilah but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.) If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the Jizya tax.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 96)
...This time the Apostle said, “Kinsmen, I know of no Arab who has come to his people with a nobler message than mine. I have brought you the best of this world and the next.(Ishaq’s sira, page 118)
Mohammad also said, “Fore fathers of Meccans were burning in hell”. All this was really offending to Quraysh. Above passages clearly suggest the following:
1.) It was Mohammad who was intolerant; he not only provoked but also refused to mend his ways by persisting in abusing Quraysh.
2.) It was Mohammad who was not prepared for peace on mutual terms; Meccans only asked for stopping of abusing their Gods.
3.) His insistence that he be recognized as messenger of God and  so as ruler too i.e. the only way of ending this stalemate, in his view, is Quraysh converting to Islam.
4.) and also his intentions of using violence.
5.) Meccans were reasonable people; they went again and again to Mohammad’s uncle to settle dispute peacefully; let’s compare their tolerance in those days with present day Islamic tolerance and blasphemy law in Sharia and Islamic nations or even the way Muslims react to perceived insults.

The fact that they tried to settle the dispute with the help of his uncle who brought him up is evidence of Quraysh tolerance. Any one can easily see that their demand of Mohammad stopping abuse is very rational. Mohammad’s stand was always ‘his way or high way’. Meccans used to gather at a place outside Ka’aba, informal meeting, like Hindus in villages gathering in a temple casual talk, and used to discuss about Mohammad and his ways:
Abu jahl said to them: "Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell." The apostle (Muhammad) came out to them with a handful of dust saying: "I do say that." (Ibn Ishaq’s sira, Page 222)
They discussed Muhammad, saying, "We have never seen the kind of trouble we have endured from this fellow. He has derided our traditional values, declared our way of life foolish, abused and insulted our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, divided the community, and cursed our gods." .... "We have endured a great deal from him.” While they were saying this, the Apostle walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he performed the circumambulation of the Ka'aba. As he did they said some injurious things about him. I could see from the Messenger's face that he had heard them. When he passed a second time they made similar remarks. When he passed them the third time, the Prophet stopped and said, 'Hear me, O Quraysh. By Him who holds Muhammad’s life in his hand, I will bring you slaughter.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 101) (Compare all this with what Ms Dehlvi wrote ‘Muslims and Mohammad were resisting by non violence.’)
When some one reads about what happened in Mecca he/she will not find Mohammad’s tolerance, they see bigotry, threats and intentions of using violence. Muslims staying away from violence is purely circumstantial i.e. Quraysh were more powerful and Prophet Mohammad was weak. Here Mohammad was threatening Quraysh (Meccans) with slaughter if they do not convert to Islam and accept his rule; but still they did not kill him or torture him. Even with this factual evidence from their sources, Muslims want us to believe that Mohammad was a man of peace and Quraysh were savages. Tabari proudly writes:
"They were gripped by what he had said. The word he used struck the people so not one could move. It was as though everyone had a bird perched on his head. Even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him, now spoke in a conciliatory way, using the politest expressions they could muster. They said, “Depart Abu al-Qasim; for by Allah, you were never violent”. (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 102)
Meccans got it completely wrong; Mohammad, his God and their religion are all bout violence, slaughter, looting, raping, enslavement and cursing; Meccans have found out very soon.  The conclusion that can be draw from above passages is that Quraysh have two options according to Mohammad: Accept Islam and recognize him as ruler or face slaughter in the future.

If we go back a little in to Prophet’s life, we find that Mohammad’s father dies very early. His mother abandons him to other women to feed him and she too dies when Mohammad was just 6 years old. After some struggling, he was taken over by his grand father and then his uncle, Abu Talib. When Quraysh were complaining, Mohammad felt that he will be abandoned by his uncle again, that too at a time he needed his uncle’s protection.
"Muhammad thought that his uncle had the idea of abandoning and betraying him, and that he was going to lose his support. The Apostle broke into tears." (Ishaq’s sira, page 119)
But Prophet would not listen to his uncle even and Mohammad continues in his earlier path and even takes pleasure from abusing others in sadistic manner as Ishaq reports ‘exciting their dislike’:
The situation worsened; the quarrel became heated and the Meccans were sharply divided. Every tribe fell upon the Muslims, seducing them from their religion. But Allah protected his Prophet from them through his uncle. (Ishaq’s sira, page120)
The situation deteriorated, hostility became bitter, and people withdrew from one another, displaying open hatred. Trying to salvage a deteriorating situation, the Meccan chiefs conspired to seduce their sons, brothers, and clansmen away from the new religion. It was a trial which severely shook the Muslims who had followed the Prophet. Some were seduced. The main body went to Abyssinia because of the coercion they were being subjected to in Mecca. His fear was that they would be seduced from their religion. There is a difference of opinion as to the number of those who emigrated in stealth and secret. Some say there were eleven men and four women. ...Ibn Ishaq claims there were ten. (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 98)
"When the Quraysh became distressed by the trouble caused by the Apostle they called him a liar, insulted him, and accused him of being a poet, a sorcerer, a diviner, and of being possessed. However, the Apostle continued to proclaim what Allah had ordered him to proclaim. He excited their dislike by condemning their religion, forsaking their idols, and leaving them to their unbelief." (Ishaq’s sira, page 130)
Vexed by arrogance of Prophet, Meccans now indulged in their own ways i.e. they started persecuting Muslims who openly insulted them and their Gods and also they successfully induced some Muslims to leave Islam and join in their old religion. Tabari himself implies that until this time there were no problems and Quraysh were minding their own business. It was Mohammad, who was living on his wife’s wealth, who started abusing others and was primarily responsible for entire discord and unrest. However, Prophet was not the one who suffered, as he was protected by his powerful uncle, but poor ones; earlier converts to Islam were very poor and were mostly slaves who were freed after conversion to Islam.

Another thing that is visible in above passages is Muslims ridiculous and arrogant reasoning: when some one converts Muslims in to their fold it is called seduction but not vice versa. Islamic theology says ways of life of Non Muslims is satanic and seductive. Probably, now, one can understand the meaning of some verses exhorting Muslims to fight until there is no more seduction. Similarly, death penalty for apostates in Islamic law can be traced to this episode of Mohammad commanding that Muslims migrate to Abyssinia.
With all these, relations between Meccans and Muslims touch very low and for two years Meccans completely boycott all Muslims socially and economically. Then his wife Khadija dies.

In the year 619 or 620 AD, Prophet’s uncle Abu Talib was nearing his death and Meccans (Quraysh) went to him again to make truce between them and Prophet:
Abu Jahl with sundry other notables went to Abu Talib and said, “We acknowledge your rank with us, but now that you are at the point of death we are deeply concerned. You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone.” The Messenger arrived and Abu said, “Nephew, these noble men have come to give you something and gain something in return.” Muhammad said, “Can you give me words by which you can rule the Arabs and subject the Persians to you.” “How about ten words”, Abu Jahl said. Muhammad replied, “You must say, ‘There is no ilah but Allah’ and ‘Muhammad is his Messenger’”. They clapped their hands and said, “Do you want to make all the Ilahs into one Ilah, Muhammad? That would be an extraordinary thing”. (Ishaq’s sira, page 191)
Above passage must remove all the doubts, if they exist in ones mind, about Mohammad’s intolerance and intentions of using violence. Yet again he shows his obsession with conquering all others even when he was weak, though here only Persians are named; after all Allah says he was messenger for entire world.
What was the reason for breaking of this meeting with out any agreement? Was it Muslims asking their right to practice their new faith and consequently Meccans, depicted as savages, denying that right to these Muslims? The reason was Mohammad wanted to be a ruler and insistence that every one convert to Islam and obey him. Meccans were very happy to reach the agreement as they said, "he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone".

Yet again, one can see the vast gulf between what Muslims present about their religion and Prophet in public media and what their books say. It was not because of ignorance that Ms Dehlvi wrote that article in such manner, but with intention to mislead public. Can she lie so brazenly, people might ask themselves? Yes, Islam allows lying and it is called doctrine of Taqiyya; after all Islam is a very practical religion. Tell this to media and they will happily publish about Islam being practical religion as they allowed Ms Dehlvi here to suggest that Islam is non violent as she wrote: “The Meccan revelations largely consist of spiritual narratives calling Muslims to non-violent resistance”. There was no spirituality of any kind in Meccan Koran or Medinian Koran; there is only bigotry and violence, respectively.

Abu Talib, uncle of Mohammad, who brought him up from childhood and stood like wall between Mohammad and Meccans when Meccans wanted to harm Mohammad because of his abuses, was about to die. Mohammad asks him to convert to Islam by saying ‘there is no ilah but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger’ so that he could escape from hell fire. But Abu Talib refuses and Mohammad simply condemns him saying that he can not pray to Allah to forgive him.
"If you say those words uncle Abu, then I shall be able to intercede for you on Resurrection Day."……"Nephew, my brother has spoken the words you gave him to say.' The Apostle replied, 'I did not hear them.(Ishaq’s sira, page 192)
"A Muslim said to the Prophet, 'You were not of any help to your uncle Abu Talib even though he used to protect you.' The Prophet said, 'He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the Hell Fire.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, book 58, # 222)
When Abu Talib was on his death bed, Allah's Apostle came to him and found with him, Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira. Allah's Apostle said, "O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, a sentence with which I will defend you before Allah." On that Abu Jahl and 'Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said to Abu Talib, "Will you now leave the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib?" Allah's Apostle kept on inviting him to say that sentence while the other two kept on repeating their sentence before him till Abu Talib said as the last thing he said to them, "I am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib," and refused to say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah. On that Allah's Apostle said, "By Allah, I will keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so." So Allah revealed:--
'It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans.' (9.113) And then Allah revealed especially about Abu Talib:--'Verily! You (O, Muhammad) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He will.' (28.56); (Vol. 6, book 60, # 295)
That he heard the Prophet when somebody mentioned his uncle (i.e. Abu Talib), saying, "Perhaps my intercession will be helpful to him on the Day of Resurrection so that he may be put in a shallow fire reaching only up to his ankles. His brain will boil from it." (Vol. 5, Book 58, # 224)
One can clearly see Mohammad’s astonishing ego; he was obsessed with himself and relations and blood ties matter least to this ego maniac if any one disobeys him. To call him as human let alone God’s messenger is an insult to humanity.

Finally, this post clearly presents that contrary to what Muslims say about peaceful nature of Islam and Mohammad in Mecca, Prophet was just intolerant, irrational and power monger; the only option available for Quraysh was to convert to Islam and recognize him as ruler. It also establishes that there will never be any equality between Islam and other faiths in the eyes of Muslims as they have to follow Mohammad as an example in their life.


Anonymous said...

i find this comment good and decided to paste it here.

i hope no problem with this.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.

In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a mask for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their "religious" privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

admin said...

"The situation worsened; the quarrel became heated and the Meccans were sharply divided. Every tribe fell upon the Muslims, seducing them from their religion. But Allah protected his Prophet from them through his uncle." (Ishaq’s sira, page120)

One will come across above passage in the post. I wanted to comment on this, but felt that it might be a unwanted digression. So in comments sections I am writing.

In Ibn Ishaq's words or the narrator of that particular hadith, one can clearly see Islamic fatalism.

Mohammad received protection from his uncle; but it was not his uncle, Abu Talib, who protected Mohammad but it was Allah who did.

This is how Muslims think. They never feel any gratefulness or need to integrate in to host their country even if they have found happiness there; no; it is not that country's democracy or secularism or laws that has made this possible but Allah. Once one thinks in this way, there was never any need for him to be loyal towards that host nation.

The same thing can be applied to kafirs helping Muslims or showing generosity, I am not telling that one should not be friendly towards Muslims; Muslims who received the help attributes this to Allah saying Allah opened the heart of that Kafir, who helped him, to help. It was Allah who helped him but not that Kafir.

Anonymous said...

84 wars in 10 years!

one war per every 5 and half weeks!

lots of

Anonymous said...

hello, who you are, you write complete lies and nonsense. Our holy Prophet, peace be upon him, never said this kind of what you wrote.

Where do you read these kind? You read proper Koran before you come to write such things. it is so hard for me not to use bad words but I will not.

May Allah guide you.

Anonymous said...

@ above anonymous,

please do not write anything on this blog. you are making this hate blog popular by writing and engaging in discussion. it is better all the way to avoid this kind. you can see that even Hindus are neither reading nor writing.

brother/sister, peace to you and your family.

believer said...

huh.huh.huh....go fuck your self or fuck those idols. while we fuck your women.

admin said...

To believer,

Read my earlier comment. It is for you and suits you a lot.

Anonymous said...

@ believer
Dont worry I worship idols and fuck yur women, burkha clad chaste muslim women.

Michael Servetus said...

All truth thank God the truth and evil is being exposed to the world of evil Islam and it evil man.

Michael Servetus said...

All truth thank God the truth and evil is being exposed to the world of evil Islam and it evil man.