An example of Moderate Islam (!): Malaysian laws regulate how Non-Muslims construct their buildings

What is moderate Islam? You will get a very fine answer from this new law of a Malaysian province.

Few days ago, in an e-mail I received a person wrote the following:

".....i agree one point which u ( i.e me ) told...if they are huge in population they (Muslims) follow their religion aggressively with rule and if they are meagre, then they will just follow things with belief and impose others to follow......."

The very same person writes he/she still respects Islam. Something went wrong here? Every thing because it is primarily Koran that is guiding Muslims, which looked like 'following aggressively' to that person.

One still can not fault that person because they are products of a system which lies everyday and which distorted history and created myth upon myth about Islam.

In the language of that person, consequences of 'Muslims following their religion aggressively' are complete ethnic cleansing and extermination of religious minorities from Muslim majority nations. This is the direct result of humiliation imposed upon Non-Muslim religious minorities through legal discrimination, and these humiliating laws are completely based on Koran and Sharia.

These humiliating discriminatory laws against Non-Muslims are indicative of what kind of relations should exist between Muslims and Non-Muslims, what kind of attitudes Muslims should have towards Non-Muslims according to Koran.

On what basis Hindus in India think that Indian Muslims have different attitude towards them? Assumptions and wishful thinking. They forget or ignore the fact that all Muslims follow same Koran.

Coming to Malaysia, discrimination against Non-Muslims is not a secret nor something Malaysian Govt. is ashamed about.

Like all times, in utter contempt of Non-Muslims and their intellect, Malaysian Govt. is never short of issuing a statement in this fashion: "Islam is a universal religion. All people can live equally  in Islam provided Non-Muslims accept certain rules....."

Pure hypocrisy? Much more than that. It is all about Islam being supremacist and fascist. It also shows Muslims are incapable of realizing on their own about inhumanity of Islam.

Coming to this law, Malaysian Govt. (actually it is a Govt. of a province) makes a new law that tells how building should be constructed in future i.e. they should be in accordance with Islamic law e.g. they should not display idols.

Lets listen to what an official says on this:

“Islam is a universal religion and is suitable for all races. The Buddhist association can build it (its new building) as long as it does not have elements that go against Islam."

“For instance, they can have any Chinese designs, architecture or colours but they are discouraged from putting images of idols on the buildings,” he told reporters after launching the state Muktamar Dewan Ulama PAS in Machang Saturday.

I guess infidels putting mere idols on their temples and buildings goes against Islam.

And this is true moderate Islam i.e. a myth, a delusion.

Now the question is does the Koran support this? Wonderfully. As a matter of fact, it is Koran which makes such laws.

Just read the verse 29 from chapter 9.

And more over, The Reliance of Traveller, a manual of sharia law of Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam, which is also approved by Al-Azhar University - supreme authority in Sunni Islam, says that Non-Muslims living under Islamic law should neither display their religious symbols publicly nor on their buildings.

Of course it says much more which was presented in this blog many times.

Kelantan MB: Certain buildings can be without Islamic features  

Indian secularism gives right to Indian Muslims to burn Churches? Muslims setting Church on fire goes unreported

How else burning of church in Sri Nagar by Muslims neither receiving condemnation from so called secular politicians and intellectuals nor not being reported in media be interpreted?

And then of course, Hindus, who happily chose to accept killing of 80 million Hindus, enslavement of Hindu women as sex slaves for producing Muslim children and destruction of around 10,000 temples during Islamic rule as harmony between Muslims ans Hindus, can never have problem with that kind of Islamic vandalism.

So, it is like a free pass to Muslims to do anything they want.

Have we not looked other way when Sharia courts are operating in Kashmir and dictating terms to Police and the Government? By no means this vandalism (or desecration of church) is first of its kind in Kashmir or India (HERE).

But media has no ethical problem at the same time to depict and label any one pointing to this glaring inequity as communal, Hindu right wing and Islamophobe.

The amount of effort to portray Islam and Muslims as peaceful is simply mind boggling as it actively involves censoring of Muslim violence, terrorism, Jihad and Islamic teachings and complete distortion of history on global level.

But lies are lies. The truth is coming out, albeit slowly. But whether it reaches significant proportion of population to withstand Islamic fascism - when it flies in to our face - is the question.

Indian Kashmir, "unknown arsonists" set fire to a Catholic church   

Islam is all about co-existence and mutual respect?

Of course, those who have read Koran and Islamic teachings knew it is a grand myth perpetuated by Muslim spokesmen.

Those who have political knowledge about how Islamic nations treat Non-Muslims knew that it is more than a delusion. 

Yet, most Non-Muslims chose to believe in that kind of delusions because it gives a sense of security.

Secular Indian Hindus should listen to this 'Islamophobe'

Sheik Omar Bakri...

An Islamic scholar who spent all his life in reading Koran, sayings of Prophet Mohammad and biography of Prophet Mohammad and other scholarly works in Islam......

Why did he get so wrong about Islam?

Isn't that Muslim intellectuals in India along with their apologists say Islam is a religion preaching respect to all and equality?

What about the saying that 'All religions are same'? 

What about the saying that 'No religion teaches hatred'?

In a nation which made Hindus to worship the murderers like 'so called Sufi saints' (HERE), this type of video exhibiting true colors of Islam might not make any difference ...

GOD SAVE HINDUS OF INDIA

What are the rights of Non-Muslims under Islam?

Sheikh says:

"Sharia has defined human rights for Muslims and Non-Muslims...."

"Rights of Non-Muslims differ from that of Muslims"....

"They are not equal"....

"Yes, a Non-Muslim can not have any rights under Sharia"....

"Now the Muslims have greater rights and respect because he is a Muslim"...

"For Islam is above others, and never below, so the Muslim is never below"....

"Islam does not believe in the equality of men because all men are not equal in the eyes of Allah"......

"For example, A Muslim has right to marry a Christian or a Jewish girl but it is not permissible for a Chritian or Jewish man to marry a Muslim girl"......

.......................

What essentially he is saying that Islam treats Non-Muslims like cattle....

THIS IS HOW ISLAM TREATS NON-MUSLIMS

Muslims dissemble Islam's true face by saying Islam prohibits killing of innocent people; what they do not tell you is Islam never considers Non-Muslims as innocents (Part 2)

So who is innocent according to Islam and Koran? Are Non-Muslims innocent?

In the previous post we saw some Islamic scholars saying Non-Muslims are not considered as innocent in Islam and by Muslims as they (Non-Muslims) have committed the offense of not believing in Allah and His Prophet i.e. have not converted to Islam.

But what do Islamic scriptures -Koran, Hadith and Sharia law - say regarding Non-Muslims being innocent or not innocent? Whenever Koran talks about Non-Muslims, it is only in negative view. Koran literally dehumanizes Non-Muslims. It tells that Non-Muslims are wretched animals, inferior to Muslims, and are enemies of Muslims. And 61% of text in Koran is devoted to talking about Non-Muslims.

And it is still better to start from what is presented by that  facebook page Islam and Hinduism Initiative ( IHI ), to support their claim that Islam prohibits killing of innocents. (It looks like they also have a website and one can read what they wrote in that from HERE.)

Note: The paragraphs I copied from their facebook page are in quotations and background color.

They quote a verse, 5:32, from Koran in their support. Here I have to admit that they quoted the verse 5:32 completely which is commendable because when most Muslim apologists quote this verse in the media they do so by leaving important parts. Below is the verse:

005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. 

According to them, this verse allows taking lives i.e. killing people only as punishment to those persons who either committed murder or were spreading mischief.

And they contend that 'innocents' include Non-Muslims too. They said this in the comments but not in the main post. And to prove their point they quote what two great Islamic scholars said with regard to this verse.

But the problem is they only present partially what those scholars said. When we look in full detail what those scholars said the clear picture emerges.

Here is what Ibn Kathir, one of scholars they mentioned, says with respect to this verse which is also mentioned in that page:

"The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.”

Is the soul of Non-Muslims included in the above explanation? Just read on. The facebook page further mentions, from the same work of Ibn Kathir with regard to the same verse 5:32:

Al-A'mash and others said that Abu Ṣāliḥ said that Abu Hurayrah said, “I entered on `Uthmān when he was under siege in his house and said, ‘I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said, ‘O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.’ So I went back and did not fight.”

But what they do not tell you - is in the above incident - it is Muslims fighting Muslims. The third caliph of Islam, Uthman, was facing a rebellion from a section of Muslims, who eventually kill him.

Now lets look at what Ibn Kathir further says with regard to this verse, and this is not presented for public view in that facebook page:

Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.'' In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah, "He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.'' 

So, according to Ibn Kathir, one killing a Muslim with out sufficient reason is like killing the whole man kind. The life of Non-Muslims simply does not figure at all.

And also look at the way how Muslims hide the full information from the eyes of Non-Muslims and how selectively they quote their books. 

Interestingly, IHI itself shows how Non-Muslims are not innocents when they quote a hadith through which they intend to show how Islam considers killing a person is a sin. The hadith is:

Narrated Anas bin Mālik (radhi-yAllāhu 'anhu): The Prophet [sal-Allāhu 'alayhi wa sallam] said, “The biggest of Al-Kabā'ir (the great sins) are: (1) To join others as partners in worship with Allāh, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be undutiful to one's parents, and (4) to make a false statement,” or said, “to give a false witness.” - [Sahīh al-Bukhārī (9/6871)Bk no. 78, no.667]

This hadith is literally telling that, from the first of great sins, all Non Muslims are criminals ( or sinners). Worshiping other Gods besides Allah is called Shirk. And the way Islam defines worshiping makes all Non-Muslims committing Shirk. Lets see another hadith in this regard:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 802 (Sahih Bukhari)
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:
I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which is the biggest sin?" He said, "To set up rivals to Allah by worshipping others though He alone has created you." I asked, "What is next?" He said, "To kill your child lest it should share your food." I asked, "What is next?" He said, "To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbor."

Both the above hadith confer that Shirk is the greatest sin in Islam. So are those committing sin criminals or innocents? Koran too says Shirk is the greatest sin which Allah will never forgive in the verses 4:48 and 4:116.

When I pointed out this, the reply was that though shirk is the greatest sin according to Islam but it is Allah who will be punishing them (Non-Muslims) in hereafter and Muslims are not supposed to do anything about it in this life. They also said that concept of sin is different from concept of mischief.

Really? On what basis they came to this conclusion? Nothing. Lets take a look at the verse 2:193:

Verse 2:193 (Noble Koran by Al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan)
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) 

With respect to this verse, this is what Ibn Kathir, whose views are quoted by that IHI facebook page, says ( HERE ):

The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah means
(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. Allah's statement:(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' 

Then Ibn Kathir chillingly quotes  ( HERE ):

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing.

It can not be more clearer than this i.e. Non-Muslims not believing in Allah is worse than Muslims killing them.

So, it looks like the punishment for sin is not just left to Allah and that is precisely Allah tells Muslims to wage Jihad against Non-Muslims.

When I showed this, the IHI in its facebook page simply stopped responding to my comments.

And the second scholar they quote is none other than Abdul Ala Maududi, founder of Jamait-e-Islami and probably the most popular Islamic scholar in Indian Sub Continent. They quote from his work, Tafheem:

This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others. Whosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind. This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind. 

If any one wants to see this in proper perspective, one look at what Maududi says on Jihad:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet .... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule." ( HERE )

Islamic 'jihad' does not recognize their (Non-Muslims) right to administer state affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic 'jihad' also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam."

Similarly, IHI in its facebook page quotes Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Ash-Shaykh al-Allāmah Abd al-Azīz bin ‘Abdallāh Aal Ash-Shaykh:

"Killing and terrorizing innocent people and the destruction of property are not condoned by Islām. Attributing all these horrific incidents to Islām is unjust. Muslims should tell the truth and unveil falseness, and inform all people that Islām is a religion of righteousness, betterment and progress.”

His view on who could be innocent can be gauged from the fact he called for destruction of all Churches in Arabian Peninsula ( HERE ).

So, is a Non-Muslim innocent in the eyes of Allah and Islam? Never. This fact can be seen from hundreds of verses from Koran.

Still at the beginning of my previous post, I wrote, "I am not claiming Islam tells Muslims to kill all Non-Muslims".

What Islam tells Muslims is their primary objective should be to bring every human being under the Islamic law i.e. whole world should be placed under Islamic law. The process by which they achieve this goal is Jihad. And Islamic law, we know that, is very discriminating towards Non-Muslims in which a Non-Muslim is never equal to a Muslim either in the value of life or political aspects or social aspects or religious aspects.

Since, Non-Muslims are never considered as innocent, it is OK to kill these vermin in Jihad and if Muslim kill Non-Muslims they are promised the most sensual pleasures in Paradise by Allah.

(To be cont.)

Muslims dissemble Islam's true face by saying Islam prohibits killing of innocent people; what they do not tell you is Islam never considers Non-Muslims as innocents (Part 1)

Muslims always say that Islam prohibits killing of innocents. Recently, a facebook page run by a Muslim group has put up this kind.

And of course, who can forget Muslim mafia associate Sharukh Khan proclaiming that he has read Koran and he found that Koran prohibits killing of innocent people.

Similarly, many times we find that - whenever Muslim terrorists killed large number of people - Imams issuing fatwas that say Islam prohibits violence against innocent people or killing of innocent people.

But they never say Islam prohibits violence against Muslims or Non-Muslims. Not that if they say that it becomes true.

Unfortunately, Hindu citizens (Non-Muslims) take this word and infer that they are included in that class of 'innocents' and feel comfort and secure.

Are such Hindus (Non-Muslims) right in feeling so?

Central to all these is the word 'innocent'. But who is innocent according to Muslims, Koran and Islam?

Please remember that, during the reading of this entire post, I am not claiming that Islam preaches Muslims to kill all Non-Muslims.

An Islamic scholar from United Kingdom, Anjem Chowthury, says that Non-Muslims are never considered as  innocents in Islam. One can watch him saying this, after London Bus Bombings in the year 2005, in BBC HARD TALK,  with the host Stephen Sackur:


Part of the Verbatim of this 'HARD TALK':

Sackur: I just wonder why you won't condemn it when your own leader, Omar Bakri, said quite simply, "I condemn the killing of innocent people," on the 20th of July. Why won't you say what he said?
Chaudri: No, at the end of the day innocent people - when we say innocent people we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam, and as far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.
Sackur: I want to be clear about what you are saying – this is very important – you are saying that only Muslims can count as innocent people?
Chaudri: As far as far as Muslims are concerned , you are innocent if you are a Muslim – then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.

The statement 'when we say innocent people we mean Muslims' can not be more clearer about who is innocent according to Muslims.

According to Stephen Sackur, Omar Bakri condemned the London bombings. When talking with BBC and Journalists Omar Bakri, a Muslim leader, condemned suicide bombings? Sure he said the above sentence, "I condemn the killing of innocent people."

But in his meetings with his followers and in mosques, he referred to the bombers as the “fantastic four”. He explained that his lament for the “innocent” applied only to Muslims and announced, "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any Kuffar.”

Note: During the time of London bombings, two British journalists Ali Hussain and Jonathan Calvert through an underground operation, were recording the proceedings of a Muslim group 'The Savior Sect' to which Anjem Chowthury and Omar Bakri are leaders. This operation was  named as 'Undercover in the academy of hatred'

This entire report came out in Sunday Times.

Some more statements of Omar Bakri:

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity." (SOURCE)


"All Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs are Kafirs (disbelievers) in Islam, all non-Muslims are guilty of not accepting the Message of Muhammad (Salah allahu alayhi wa sallem)."  (SOURCE)

As I quoted these in my discussion with the Muslim group on the facebook page, their response was Anjem Chowthury was not an Islamic scholar.

But what about Omar Bakri? This link was deleted by them saying I used an anti-Islamic website. I made the mistake of referring to website of Daniel Pipes, instead if I would have used the wikipedia or some news clippings, I was wondering what their response would be.

Then it is the usual Islamic deception they, that group of facebook page, employed. Denial and disowning. But even this cover could not protect them for long time as I showed them proper Islamic sources say and what Proper Islamic scholars said on this  i.e. are Non-Muslims innocent in the eyes of Islam?

(To be cont.)

Hatred of Islam and Muslims? No, it is Koran which preaches explicit hatred towards Non-Muslims

Most people, Hindus, unfortunately, do not know what Islam teaches or preaches to Muslims. This lead Muslims, in collaboration with leftists and media, to embark on a propaganda of rising hatred of Islam in the world and to influence various Govt.s towards making laws to contain that hatred.

But who is going to protect Non-Muslims from Koran and Islam preaching Muslims to hate and despise Non-Muslims?

wahh.....Does Koran teach hatred towards Non-Muslims? It does not stop with mere preaching of hatred. It goes further by inciting violence and warfare towards Non-Muslims for which Muslims will be richly rewarded by Allah.

But most Hindus rather believe in the following quote: "Secularism is the bedrock of our nationhood. It implies more than tolerance. It involves an active effort for harmony. No religion preaches hatred and intolerance." (It seems (Late) Former PM Rajiv Gandhi made this statement. )

What ever be the intentions of (Late) Rajiv in those comments, Hindus blindly hanging on to that kind of philosophy even in the face of evidence to the contrary or showing lack of interest to explore the truth about Islam is dangerous and criminal too as, one day, they are bound to face the challenge of Islamic fascism.

Coming to Islam, without hatred towards Non-Muslims, there is neither Islam nor Muslims. More than 61% of text in Koran is directed towards Non-Muslims rather than teaching to Muslims about their religion.

Hatred and enmity towards Non-Muslims is integral to one being a Muslim. And it is a necessity of Islamic faith. Few times in this blog, I posted what some Islamic scholars said on this basic premise of hatred and enminty towards Non-Muslims and what Islamic websites have written; links to those will provided in the end.

Hindu Muslim inter religious marriages (8): A Hindu Doctor ends her life

Hindu doctor ends her life as her Muslim husband was harassing her to convert to Islam 

A tragic end to a life.

Imagine how much she could have contributed to the society and Hindu civilization if she has not taken this unfortunate route.

Coming to that Muslim monster, he will go free, considering how weak our system of law is, and marry a Muslim girl and will father and raise 3 to 4 children.

I wrote so many times here that nothing prevents Muslim men from reneging on their promises. Their own teachings tell them that they can break their promises and there is no sin in doing so as following sayings of Prophet Mohammad show:

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260:

The Prophet said, "......... If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."

Volume 8, Book 78, Number 618:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq had never broken his oaths till Allah revealed the expiation for the oaths. Then he said, "If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath."

And then what can be more loftier in a Muslims life than converting infidels to Islam? It is a free ticket to enjoy 72 virgin houris in paradise. It is Jihad in another form.

Here, I will go one step and analyze what prompted her to take that unfortunate decision. 

Definitely, she must have been advised by her friends or her well wishers not to go with such marriage. She must have been told by some people about true nature of Islam and how badly things could turn against her.

As with most cases, she brushed aside those advises thinking like every other Non-Muslim woman that her man is different and Islam is like every other religion. And then always, there is influence of Bollywood which itself is corrupt and immoral.

As the report says, she even applied for divorce, all this implying that she is suffering from some kind of guilt complex from which she was unable to come out. She must be blaming herself, unwarranted, for the decision she took irrespective of advises she got from many people. She was unable to talk to herself out of this and might have decided to take the unfortunate decision. 

She is not the first one of this kind. Case studies in Bhopal showed that some Hindu girls committed suicide and some suffered irreparable damages to their psychology and were living with their parents now in helpless situation. 

And finally, with regrets, I can only say that this is not the first case and will not be the last one too.

Because Islam is pure evil. And those who believe in it are nothing but monsters who lost all the feelings for humanity and rationalism.