UK to Check Islamic Schools After Sharia Claim and anti-Semitism

BBC says found network of more than 40 un-regulated weekend Islamic schools teaching anti-Semitic views, advocating extreme punishment for theft, sodomy

by Reuters

Britain's education department is to look at how it can check Islamic weekend schools after the BBC reported it had uncovered more than 40 of them teaching anti-Semitic views and extreme punishment for sodomy and theft.

The BBC said its "Panorama" program, which will air on Monday evening, had found a network of weekend Islamic schools in Britain were teaching children how to chop off the hands of thieves, that Zionists are trying to take over the world and that sodomy is punishable by death.

Currently the government does not regulate weekend, part-time teaching centers.

The Department for Education said it could not allow anti-Semitic material in English schools and that the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted), which inspects schools, was looking into how to monitor the part-time centers.

"Ofsted are doing some work in this area. They'll be reporting to us shortly about how we can ensure that part-time provision is better registered and better inspected in the future," the department said in a statement.

Saudi national curriculum
Panorama said the centers fell under the umbrella of the Saudi Students' Schools and Clubs in the UK and Ireland and have been teaching the Saudi national curriculum to about 5,000 children.

It said the schools, which teach children between the ages of 6 and 18, have been using textbooks that contain diagrams showing the Sharia way to cut off the hands and feet of people convicted of theft and that Zionists are plotting to take over the world for Jews.

It said it had obtained a textbook that asked children to list the "reprehensible" qualities of Jews. It also said they were told the punishment for sodomy was death and that there is a difference of opinion on whether this should be by stoning, burning or throwing off a cliff.

The Saudi Students' Schools and Clubs group could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Saudi Embassy said it would not comment on the Panorama program until it had seen it, but the BBC said it had received a letter from the Saudi ambassador saying the network of weekend schools had nothing to do with the embassy.

Quilliam, a think-tank that studies radical Islamism, said Saudi Arabia had stopped using the textbooks that Panorama referred to as it took steps to modernize its religious education and that the Saudi government should try to persuade Islamic schools in Britain to stop "hate preaching".

"It is unfortunate that these so-called Saudi schools in Britain do not seem to have similarly moved with the times. The Saudi authorities need to use their influence to ensure that hate-preaching is fully tackled both at home and abroad," Quilliam spokesman Talal Rajab said.

Open Letter From a War Criminal

IDF reservist who served in Gaza war writes to person behind ‘list of war criminals’

by Yoav Keren

To be honest, I was a little insulted. I looked for myself on the list of 200 Operation Cast Lead war criminals published online last week but didn’t find what I was looking for. I performed almost a month of reserve duty during the operation, yet nothing; no mention. Not even a small one.

Even a low-ranking female soldier got to enter the list of war criminals, and was even graced with a Facebook photo in civilian clothing, engaged in yoga. Not to mention those pilots; finally we could see their faces (and also their addresses and military ID numbers)

As it turns out, the Israeli who produced the list – and there is almost no doubt it’s an Israeli, who is intimately familiar with the IDF – did not do a particularly thorough job. In any case, he missed me.

I served in the Gaza Division war room for 26 days and saw everything in real time. I saw how every time we had to curb Qassam fire from populated areas, officials considered it seven times and meticulously calculated the firing range and angle, as not to hurt civilians by mistake.

I also saw how, to be on the safe side, the army consulted with its legal advisor and with a representative of the Coordination and Liaison Administration who were regularly deployed in the war room.

I saw the great seriousness in addressing a water pipe that burst in Rafah, and the kind of effort invested in order to bring food into the Strip and allow ambulances to evacuate wounded Palestinians from the war zone.

I also participated in assessment sessions with the division commander; a major part of them pertained to humanitarian issues.

I walked around Sderot, which looked like a ghost town after sustaining dozens of Qassam rockets, and I also saw the Grad missiles making their way to Ashkelon without anybody being able to stop them. Believe me, it’s not a heart-warming sight.



I’m no longer afraid
In short, I was there, and according to the twisted standards of the various list producers this apparently turns me into a war criminal as well.

Here’s a small confession: In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, I was thinking of posting photographs from my reserve service on my Facebook page. I’m not talking about photos alongside Palestinian detainees, heaven forbid; just regular images of me sitting with the guys at the division’s canteen. I didn’t do it because I was afraid that one day, when I travel abroad, these photos may incriminate me.

Yet I’m no longer afraid, because I realized that I’m in good company. Not only the army chief and Southern Command chief and Air Force chief, but also anyone who serves in the IDF is by definition a war criminal apparently. And as any soldier who walks the streets in uniform may find himself in one blacklist or another, even if he serves as a cook in an Air Force munitions base, I have no reason to hide.

So for the benefit of the producer of the abovementioned list: My name is Yoav Keren, I’m a reserve major, and my personal ID number is 5030397. You can find out my address on your own. So the next time you update the list of war criminals, you can add me too. But if you use a photo from Facebook, at least make sure it’s a good one.





Ynet News

Does Settlements Freeze Deal Make Sense?

Freeze debate should take into account some facts about settlements, US politics

by Yoram Ettinger








1. The complex nature of Jewish construction in the settlements:

* If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

* If the uprooting of Jewish communities advances peace, why would the uprooting of Arab communities undermine peace?!

* The call for uprooting Arabs is immoral; isn't the uprooting of Jews just as immoral?!

* If the 300,000 Jews, among 1.5 million Arabs, in Judea and Samaria constitute an obstacle to peace, how would one define the 1.5 million Arabs, among 6 million Jews, within pre-1967 Israel?!

* If Jewish settlements/communities in Judea and Samaria (established1967) constitute the obstacle to peace, why was the PLO established in 1964?! Why did anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism flare up during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s?! Why did the Arab-Israel wars erupt in1948/9, 1956 and 1967? Why did an unprecedented Palestinian terrorism surge follow the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria?!

* Past freezes, slowdowns and dismantling of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria intensified pressure and exacerbated terrorism – what would be the impact of another freeze?!

2. White House promises, guarantees and commitments by US presidents are evasive and illusive:

They are replete with escape routes, ambiguity, non-automaticity, and always subject to US' – and not the recipient's – interests. Even the tightest US treaty – with NATO – allows the US to consider the activation of military force.

3. Precedents of US commitments raise doubts:

* The 1954 US-Taiwan defense treaty was concluded by President Eisenhower and terminated by President Carter in 1979.

* In 1957, Israel retreated from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for President Eisenhower's Executive Agreement, which committed US military deployment should Egypt violate Sinai's demilitarization and blockade Eilat.

* In 1967, Egypt violated Sinai's demilitarization and blockaded Eilat, but President Johnson declared his predecessor's commitment non-binding.

* In 1975, President Ford sent an official letter to Prime Minister Rabin, declaring that the US shall give great weight to Israel's position that the Golan Heights should remain under Israel's control. In 1979, President Carter declared Ford's letter non-committal.

* In 1982, President Reagan stipulated – in order to overcome Congressional opposition – that the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia would not be stationed in Tabuq, south of Eilat. In 2003, President Bush justified the Saudi deployment of the fighter planes to Tabuq by altered strategic regional circumstances.

* In 1991 President Bush promised Prime Minister Shamir – in return for Israeli restraint in face of Iraqi Scud missiles - to favorably consider granting Israel $10 billion loan guarantees for the absorption of one million Soviet Jews, and to dedicate 30% of the bombing in West Iraq to the destruction of the Scud launchers. Prime Minister Shamir kept his side of the bargain; President Bush did not!

* In 2000, President Clinton promised Israel $800 million for the retreat from Southern Lebanon, none of which has reached Israel.

4. An American president is not omnipotent, and Congress has the capabilities to enhance US-Israel cooperation:

An American president represents one third of the US government, equal in power to the other third, the US Congress. Unlike the Parliamentarian system, a US president does not determine the list of candidates to the Legislature, the identity of congressional leaders, nor the slate of legislation to be introduced in Congress. A president is constrained by a robust system of checks and balances and by a complete separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature.

It was Congress – sometimes in defiance of presidents - which terminated US military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua, facilitated the Jewish Exodus from the USSR (the "Jackson-Vanik Amendment"), cut foreign aid to Turkey following the latter's invasion of Cyprus, accelerated the fall of South Africa's White Regime (overriding Reagan's veto), etc.

In 1991, Congress forced President Bush to transfer to Israel $700 million worth of military systems, in addition to a $650 million emergency grant and the refurbishing of the port of Haifa for the benefit of the Sixth Fleet.

5. Congress shares policy-making power, while possessing exclusive legislative power:

Congressional posture is bolstered during economic crises (e.g. currently) and presidential posture is enhanced during wartime.

In 1995 and 1999, Congress intended to force the president to transfer the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but Israel's prime ministers urged Congress to temper the legislation, thus dooming the effort.
In October 1998 – a few days before the convening of the Wye Plantation Conference – Democratic congressional leaders told Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "When it comes to opposing pressure on Israel, we are with Newt (Gingrich)." However, an Israeli prime minister pulled the rug from under their feet….

The US Congress – equipped with the Power of the Purse – has the Constitutional capabilities to initiate, suspend, amend and rescind policies. Congress can direct presidents to exercise the veto power at the UN Security Council, supply Israel with vital military systems in face of mutual threats, etc.

Will Jerusalem learn from history by repeating – or by avoiding – critical errors?!





Ynet News

Al-Qaeda Issues Hebrew-Language Threat

Online recording tells 'aggressor Jews' they will not be safe until they 'leave land of Palestine'

by Reuters



An al-Qaeda-linked group issued a Hebrew threat on Thursday to avenge Israel's killing of two Gaza militants, in what an expert said was the first use of the language for such propaganda.

In the half-minute-long recording posted on a website used by declared al-Qaeda affiliates, a hoarse male voice tells the "aggressor Jews" they will not be safe from rockets and other attacks until they "leave the land of Palestine".

The speaker identifies himself as a member of the group Jemaa Ansar al-Sunna or "Community of Sunna Supporters", which has a presence in Gaza.

Mohammed Nimnim and Islam Yassin, killed in Israeli air strikes on Nov. 3 and Nov. 17, were Gazan leaders of the Army of Islam, a Palestinian Islamist group inspired by al-Qaeda. Israel accused them of having planned to attack Israelis in the Egyptian Sinai.

Matti Steinberg, an Israeli intelligence veteran who specialises in Islamism, said it was unprecedented for Hebrew to be used on an al-Qaeda forum.

While Osama bin Laden's followers have made public appeals in languages other than Arabic, this was usually to "win over, educate and preach to the wider Muslim world", Steinberg said.

"Here, by contrast, it seems the idea to make Jews feel that the threat is close at hand and not some distant menace."

The recording, which was quoted on Israel's Army Radio, ends by invoking "al-Quds", Arabic for Jerusalem.

Obama, What Color is the Sky?

by Gadi Adelman

You really have to wonder about politicians sometimes. They get asked a simple question by a journalist and they ramble on to get their own agenda or talking points across and sometimes, they spin it so far, they never even answer the question.
I’m used to that. I expect that during a campaign or before an upcoming important vote on the floor. But not during a ‘town hall’ with students asking about “jihad”.

The question that President Obama was asked, and more importantly, the way the question was phrased could have been answered in a infinite amount of ways. But the way Obama chose to answer it scares the heck out of me and once again, makes me ask why?

The President was speaking at a St. Xavier’s College, a 147-year-old Jesuit institution in Mumbai, India.
You know, Mumbai.

It was where on November 26, 2008 Pakistani (can I say it?) terrorists attacked in what was more than 10 coordinated shootings and bombings all across Mumbai, India’s largest city, that lasted 3 days leaving 173 people dead and over 300 wounded.

When Anam Ansari, third-year physics student from Byculla, asked the President about jihad, she wasn’t asking him about the “internal struggle” of a Muslim. I am not in her head, so let’s look at the actual question verbatim.

“Hi, good day, sir. Hi, my name is Anam and I’m from St. Davis College. My question to you is, what is your take or opinion about jihad, or jihadi? Whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?”

Obviously, there is a language barrier here, but I think that Anam phrased it beautifully. She left no room for error. She said “jihad”, she said “jihadi” and even ended the question with “what do you think of THEM”.

Them. As in plural, as in more than one, as in “jihadists”, as in more than one person that makes war or terror under the flag of Islam.

There really is no questioning what she meant, she is after all at St. Xavier’s College in Mumbai only a few blocks from the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, just one of the areas in which hundreds were murdered during the November 26, 2008 attacks.

They just suffered, wait for it Mr. President, I’ll use a term even you can understand, they suffered a “man made casualty” just two years ago that left the city in ruins with people dead, remember?

So, Obama, the great orator, the American Idol of speech givers, stumbled and paused and thought and stumbled some more to answer what truly was a simple question with a simple answer.

Yes, I know, it’s easy for me to sit here and play armchair quarterback , but let’s face it, he could have answered the question in a way that would have satisfied those in India and the rest of the world and yes, even in a politically correct manner as to make his liberal base happy.

But, more importantly, he could have answered it in a way that would put those that Anam was referring to, the jihadists, on notice, that we as America will not stand for acts of terror against anyone, anywhere of any kind. Period.

Would that be so bad? Last time I checked we were still at war with troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a war that even though inherited and not initiated by Obama, is being waged due to a terror attack on our nation by jihadists.

When Anam asked her question, Obama answered:
“Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions. And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.

And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts — whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or your don’t practice a religion — that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to — that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.

And that’s a major challenge. It’s a major here in India, but it’s a challenge obviously around the world. And young people like yourselves can make a huge impact in reaffirming that you can be a stronger observer of your faith without putting somebody else down or visiting violence on somebody else.

I think a lot of these ideas form very early. And how you respond to each other is going to be probably as important as any speech that a President makes in encouraging the kinds of religious tolerance that I think is so necessary in a world that’s getting smaller and smaller, where more and more people of different backgrounds, different races, different ethnicities are interacting and working and learning from each other.

And those circumstances — I think all of us have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is a way to mediate our differences.”



Let me read part of his answer again:
“And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.” Really? Where does this happen? In Paradise after they blow themselves up, because neither peace, justice, fairness or tolerance has been given to the hundreds of thousands of women who have suffered under Islam. You know, the ones that have been and are being subjected to things such as:

• Obligatory female genital castration;
• Stoning to death of adulteresses;
• Compulsory acceptance of polygamy and forced child marriages;
• Beating of disobedient women and girls;
• Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
• Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms, such as leaving the house unescorted by a male family member.

Yes, there are some really fair and just things to chew on.

The last sentence of his first paragraph is truly questionable :“I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.”

A few extremists? A few? How many exactly is a few?

Daniel Greenfield who has a blog known as “Sultan Knish” answered just this question in his article “Who is Really Distorting Islam?” He wrote about the “few”,
“How many exactly is a “few”? Are we talking about a few dozen, a few thousand, a few million? Naturally Obama and the Islam apologists never really address that question.

Because it is a rather inconvenient question. Since Muslims are defined by religious streams and mosque attendance, it should be easy enough to come up with a realistic figure.

We could start with the population of Saudi Arabia, which ranks at some 25 million. That is quite a “few” extremists right there. Then there’s Pakistan with a population of 166 million. That’s a few more, right there. Of course officially both countries are allies of the United States and have nothing to do with terrorism. Even when it’s funded by their own governments.

So let’s move on to a slightly more definitive figure. In 2006, the Palestinian Arabs held an election. 440,000 of them voted for Hamas. A terrorist organization. In the 2009 Lebanon election, a coalition that included Hezbollah and the Baath Party won over 800,000 votes. So certainly we know that there are more than 1 million “misunderstanders” of Islam out there. And that’s out of a tiny portion of the Muslim world.”

How did the rest of the world look at his answer?

The Dubai-based commentator Aijaz Zaka Syed wrote in the Arab news:
“But it was a studious girl who walked out with the cake when she queried him about jihad and what he thought of it. As if Obama was a Sheikh [from] Al Azhar or Ayatollah from Qom to issue a fatwa on jihad!”

I see, so one has to be a Sheikh to be allowed to speak out against Jihad.
Even the Arab News knew exactly what Anam meant when she said Jihad, otherwise why would they even mention a fatwa against it, unless they want to put an end to their own “internal struggles”?

It’s also interesting that in a country where 80.5% of the population is Hindu while only 13.4 % is Muslim and only 2.3 % Christian, the Telegraph in Calcutta, India, interviewed Anam and she said she is a Muslim.

“I am Muslim but I did not ask him the question because I am Muslim. I just wanted to know. I was nervous when I asked him the question, and surprised that I should be the first to be called upon to question him.”

The Telegraph article also had an extremely valid point:
“Barack Hussein Obama, they call him in Islamic countries in West Asia and the conservatives back home have accused him of being “socialist”, as if that were a bad word.”

Why is it that in the Islamic and West Asian countries they always use his middle name and here in the U.S. anyone who dared utter “Hussein” was accused of being a racist or Islamaphobe?

But what really gets my blood pressure up isn’t the fact that he didn’t answer Anam’s question, it was that he played right into the hands of the jihadists! I am sure Al-Jazeera television loved that clip.

No, I take that back. He didn’t play in to the jihadists hands, he promoted them. By not answering the question as it was posed to him and saying that Islam is a great religion and that those who practice Islam reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance, he isn’t just praising Islam, he is touting those that are jihadists as well.

What message does this send to those who are jihadists or better yet, those in the early stages of becoming a jihadi, like Samir Khan once was, the American turned traitor whom I wrote about last week?

Another question that a student asked of Obama did not get as much publicity, but his answer was once again questionable and deserves to be clarified. He was asked,
“Sir, my question to you is why is Pakistan so important an ally to America, so far as America has never called it a terrorist state?”

The very first thing Obama said to this question was:
“Well — no, no, it’s a good question. And I must admit I was expecting it.”

Part of Obama’s lengthy answer was as follows:
“There are more Pakistanis who’ve been killed by terrorists inside Pakistan than probably anywhere else.”

If he had been expecting a specific question, he might have researched his answer a little better.

According to the Nation Master website, a site that gathers numerical data extracted from the C.I.A. World Factbook the top three terrorist fatalities by country between 1968 and 2006 are in descending order: Iraq, United States and India. Pakistan was number 4 followed by, you guess it, Israel.

Yes Mr. President, your own country has suffered more terrorist deaths than Pakistan according to the C.I.A.

Why does Obama continue to push the Muslim agenda?
This has been ongoing since he took office.

From his speech in Cairo shortly after becoming President, to his first television interview as President with the Arab network Al-Arabiya. Then removing all words that have anything to do with Islam in any manner within our National Security Strategy, to his Muslim outreach program with NASA , I could continue with example after example for the last 23 months.

Then when someone in this country rightly uses his middle name…
Does it really surprise anyone at this point that he would give such answers after everything he has been doing since he took office to go out of his way to praise Islam?

This does not in any way, shape or form help our national security. Our enemies only see this as a sign of weakness and gives them more reason to continue to attack us and attack us hard.

As we all were told by our mothers as we were growing up “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” I don’t remember anyone’s mother adding “or make something nice up”.

Maybe the President should heed that advice when it comes to Islam and Jihad and just say no comment. It would be better than praising a theological, political, ideology that murders anyone who disagrees with their agenda, wants world domination and then claims to be a peaceful religion.

Mr. President, for our country’s sake and safety, either start calling it like it is, or don’t say anything at all.

Remember, the next time a child asks you “What color is the sky?” You can say “Well, the phrase color has a lot of meanings and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.” Or, you could just say “blue”.

Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 9PM est. on his own radio show “AmericaAkbar” on Windows to Liberty Radio Network. He can be reached through his website Gadi Adelman.Com

Islam is Bad to Humankind

by Imran Hossain

Islam is based on Quran and Sunnah (practices of Mohamed). About 1.2-billion people believe in Islam and it is known to its followers Muslims in many ways, such as by birth, conversion, and study. Most Muslims adopt Islam due to their birth to Muslim parents. Among all these Muslims, most of them are familiar with Islam by faith and little practices. However, Islam is not limited with prayers, hajj, jakat, and fast only. Islam is supposed to be the example of Mohamed (the founder) and what Quran emphasises, and all Muslims are required to obey.

In reality, Islam is far away from the ideal of a religion when Quran and Hadis (Sunnah) are thoroughly read. The majority Muslims are not even near Islam and it is not honestly known to them. Imams, Mullahs, or such people who spend their lives on Islam represent the picture of Islam. A literal study in Islam reveals Islam as follows.

1) Mohamed does not qualify as a good person,

2) Quran is a confusing book and its teaching creates hate and fight and takes away the rights of women and non-Muslims,

3) Islam fails to provide appropriate guidance for entire mankind, and

4) More importantly, a) Islam wants to dominate the whole word b) it wants to impose its own law to every citizen.

1) The founder of Islam: The very important factor of Islam is Mohamed. In order to know a religion, it is mandatory to know the originator very well, whether he represents the messages of God. While paying full attention to the biography of Mohamed, unfortunately he is far from a holy being. He waged wars against non-Muslims, killed, and forced them to embrace his religion. He assassinated his enemies. He captured and later raped women like Safia and Jawaraiha. He was sexually attracted to a child. He looted commodities of civilians and made halal for his team (8:69, 48:20) and many more.

Now some questions arise whether this man sent by God or not and humankind choose his religion or not.

Even if people do not care of what Mohamed did in the past, Islam can still be acceptable. But a few more questions to ponder again. Quran says he is a perfect example to follow and a mercy for entire humankind. So Mohamed's examples are an integral part of Islam. During his prophecy, he looted and wage wars against infidels for Islam; he punished the thieves by cutting their hands and feet; he killed people who spoke against his brand religion; he raped and married a child of 9 years old. For human beings, none of these examples is possible to follow. If anyone desires to copy his practices completely, he will definitely end up his life living in jail.

2) Holy Book Quran: Muslims believe in Quran by heart, but it is totally a confusing book. It has no chapter, no chronology. This book is loaded with mistakes in grammar, math, logics, and science. Monotheistic God of Islam is serving himself as "We" and "Us". Without the history context of every Sura, this book cannot be understood. Anyways, it is acceptable but important to know the contents of Quran.

Quran grants different rights to women and minorities. Women cannot enjoy full rights as men. Women do not have the freedom to change husbands while men do deliberately. This book lowers the rights of minorities and asks to pay penalty taxes unless they submit into Islam. Both Quran and Hadith stress to kill anyone who leaves Islam or proselytize. Quran asks Muslims to brutally kill anyone who speaks against or wants to change Islam. Quran asks married Muslim men to have sex with slaves (23:01 - 06, 33:50, 33:52).

Quran says to avoid Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslim who can never be brothers of Muslims (5:51, 3:28). Quran teaches to hate even to own brothers and fathers if they do not believe in Islam ( 3:28, 9:23). It is an obstacle of humanity. A Muslim is not religiously allowed to associate with others just because they do not believe in Islam.

3) Missing Information: Through a study in Islamic sources, there is no special good stuff in Islam. Yes, there is some good, but this does not say better than other books. Islam is claimed to be the true religion but fails to provide with appropriate guidelines that entire humankind needs.

Islam explains the feature of males and females but badly fails to describe about hermaphrodites. They are also part of human beings. A true religion must care for hermaphrodites for this life and afterlife.

Based on the rotation of the sun and moon, Islam schedules prayers, fast, and so on. This was the idea of ancient people that reflects in many religions and cultures. In Islam, praying and fasting time is timed when the sun and moon move their courses. However, it is unknown to people how they in the northern part of the world would perform prayers and observe fasting. Over there, the length of day and night is six months long each, and many countries have very longer daylight and darkness. In this case, performing prayers and observing fast are really confusing. Islam does not provide this information and Muslims solely need to use their intelligence to figure out, which implies they are smarter than Islam.

Islam does not say any story about religions, people and culture of Eastern Asia, Australia, Americas and many parts of the world. A religion that is true must include the fact of every part of the world. It is very ambiguous to think how people in those places would be able to practise Islam and why they are supposed to go to hell without knowing Islam. It is a solid piece of absurdity that God ignores the other human beings but will put them in hell for eternity.

4) The Goal of Islam: People might forget the past of Islam and be able to practise it personally. But it is very, very important to the world that Islam wants to topple the will of people, democracy and culture, and rule the world. Dominating the world with Sharia is an emphasised part of Islam.

Mohamed used religious sentiment to make the people believe in the doctrine of his religion and used them to take over the land of Jews, Christians, and Pagans. He did not stop here. He made a religious obligatory for Muslims to fight for Islam and impose Islamic law all over the world.

Stealing is a crime, but people do not want to cut the hand of a thief. Offence is always bad, but people do not want to flog the guilty. Adultery is a crime, but a sensible human will never stone the guilty to death. Drinking is not good for health, but cultured people never want to flog the drinker. The world wants to go by its own rules. It does not need to adopt the 7th century Bedouin tradition.

Muslim Immigrants to the West must destroy the welcoming and loving culture of their host countries and impose Islamic law in the lands, if they truly go by Quran and Hadis. Islam's ultimate goal is to convert the developed world including all other non-Muslim countries to Islamic paradises like Saudi Arab, Iran, or Talibani Afghanistan.

People always want to live with their own freedom and expect others to enjoy it. But Islam will take it away as soon as it becomes powerful. Islam will impose its own policy that will force people to obey Islamic tyranny.

All four factors mentioned above prove that Islam meaningfully loses concepts of an ideal religious conviction. People must make a choice between reality and falsehood. Islam is completely different faith that cannot stand near the border of humanism, truth, and tolerance. In general, Islam has various parts that appear when it is scrutinised thoroughly.

Here are some core examples of Islam:

* Islam divides human beings into Muslims and Kafirs, which makes Muslims underestimate Kaffirs.

* Islam will put non-Muslims in hell for eternity.

* Islamic punishments and justice are brutal and inhuman (stoning, flogging, beheading).

* Islam is alien to modern culture and democracy.

* Islam keeps Muslims busy in it therefore progression in modernity is fuzzy among them.

* Islam's founder was not a good person.

* Islam has its own law, and it wants to take over the world and impose its rules.

* Islam takes away the rights of women and non-Muslims.

* Islam blocks the freedom and free speech.

* Islam can make Muslims as wild as hyenas while taking revenge.

* Islam encourages fighting and war.

* Islam kills Murtads (Islam leavers) and critics.

* Islam authorizes polygamy for men.

* Islam does not allow women to divorce.

* Islam produces terrorists / Jihadists / muftis (fighters of Islam).

* Islam forces Muslims to pray and fast.

* Islam forces women to wear burkas (veils).

Islam encourages provoking pre-existence fight (that happened 1,400 years ago) against Jews and Christians, it means this faction of hate is never-ending.

In reality, Islam has produced the following scenarios over the last 1,400 years:

* For Islam, 11 September (9/11) has occurred.

* For Islam, Islamic world has no good invention.

* For Islam, some or many Muslims talk nonsense and insult others.

* For Islam, world security is now under a threat.

* For Islam, Muslims are now becoming suspicious to the West.

* For Islam, People in Palestine, Kashmir etc cannot get along with others.

* For Islam, non-Muslims cannot bring their holy books in Saudi and cannot travel to Mecca and Medina.

* For Islam, Muslims are lying too much nowadays creating websites and publishing books.

* For Islam, many innocent people lost their body parts when charged as robbers or thieves but later found no guilty.

* For Islam, oil-rich countries raise funds for expansion, which breeds more extremism and terrorism.

* For Islam, a faithful Muslim can kill another human being.

* For Islam, Muslims become part of Umma and forget his nationality.

* For Islam, the world has much warfare.

* For Islam, hundreds of bombs are exploding and killing innocent people including Muslims in restaurants, hotels, buses, trains, beaches, and many places.

* For Islam, Muslims have conflicts with western/modern culture (e.g. riots in France, Britain, etc).

* For Islam, every media is loaded with Islamic madness news.

* For Islam, some Muslims are still fighting non-Muslims in many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

* For Islam, thousands of people had to give their lives for religious conflicts.

* For Islam, honour killing is frequent to Muslims families.

* For Islam, many sects like Shia and Ahmedia have grown, and Sunnis and the sects have been fighting since the birth of sects, which caused huge devastations and millions of lives.

These days, Islam has been a centre point of discussion everywhere in the world. People are wondering what actually Islam is. Islam is very complicated, which has various impacts on every walk of life. If there is anything that creates similar shapes, that must be discussed along with Islam. Lie cannot defeat the truth. The truth is that Islam is not a right choice for human beings. The more it is practiced, the more fascism, extremism, and terrorism increase.





Islam Watch

When Allah Does Not Know

by Imran Hossain

[This write-up might be sensitive for mainstream Muslims. If you are one of them, please be advised to read it at your own risk.]

When I was 16 about 6 years ago, I started thinking of Allah's book "Koran" and some sciences. I am from a Muslim family that's how I know Islam. In addition, I am one of the luckiest people from the Muslim society who had read Koran by knowing its words in English. Except Arabs 99 % Muslims do not even know the proper Islam and Koran. If you are a Muslim, you are already brainwashed in the childhood by the Islamists that Allah is almighty or super powerful in all circumstances, so it is a very simple thing to understand that He knows everything of us, the Universe and so on. Otherwise, it would be funny to imagine something is God.

God or Allah has to be the only one for all human beings, no discrimination is applicable here. But, based on the information from Holy Koran, I can produce here some logical issues. When I read Holy Koran, I compare its verses with some logics. I do not find the answers of my questions after reading Koran. Let me write just a few general phenomenons which Allah should know and inform us because He is almighty. However, I am not going to write why there are no Newton's laws, Einstein's theory, etc in Holy Koran. These would not fit my claims. But, after reading Holy Koran I find super powerful Allah does not know lots of things what we need today that's why there are still some FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) left.



1) Earth Is Spherical (Round): There is no doubt to almost everybody that we could know the earth is round in favour of the laws of science; however, almighty Allah's vision proves the Earth is flat. This is why still only some illiterate Mullahs do not trust the Earth is oval. Allah is all-powerful and He created us and the Universe, therefore, why doesn't he know the earth is spherical? Can anyone produce in debate any verses from Holy Koran where He explained the acceptable information on earth?

2) The Time Difference: Every region on Earth does not have the same time. When it is 6 pm and Monday in Bangladesh, it is 4 am and Sunday in BC, Canada. If you pray Johar Namaz in Bangladesh and take a flight to Saudi Arab, you get the time again for Johar Namaz. So, would you start praying again Johar Namaz? Allah is almighty, why doesn't He mention in Holy Koran the time distinction and how people would pray in that case above? Or He does not know it! So far I know that the Keamot (Doom Day) will start on Friday in the evening. Yet, when it is evening in Bangladesh, it is morning in Americas, so, where will this doom commence?

3) Movement of the Earth: The Earth is always moving. It revolves around the Sun every 365 days at a speed of about 30 km/sec. Moreover, the Earth also has an axis, and it rotates on its axis every 24 hours at a speed of about 1670 km/hr. But, almighty Allah is not familiar with it. On top of it He explained some wrong phenomenon in Holy Koran that Earth is motionless.

4) People Other Than Arabians: Surprisingly almighty Allah did not reveal even a word that people could be living in Australia, Greenland, North and South America and many other areas. He does not even know what those people are like. He was absolutely failed to send any information about Eskimos, Red-Indians (Native American Indian), Pacific-Islanders, Latin Americans, and many more. Are there any verses in Koran where I get to know about them?

5) The Pole Regions: It is so amazing when super powerful Allah does not know North and South Pole. These areas are so cold. However, some people like Eskimos live there. It is possible to find six-month daylight hours and six-month hours of darkness a year in the poles. Almighty Allah did not give any clue how people like Eskimos would practice Roza and five-time-pray a day in those above places. Are there any verses in Holy Koran where I can figure out the cold regions?

6) The Universe: According to Koran, Allah stays above the Sky which is far away from Earth. It is so miraculous that He did not post any messages to His messenger about the Solar System which contains the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, and so on. This question shows up because supreme Allah just mentions about the Sky, Sun, Earth, Moon, Stars, etc which can be seen with open eyes from the deserts, and He points out some related verses only about those.

7) The Air: The more we go up to the sky after 16-Kelometre from the Earth's surface, the more we lose gases like Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen. Therefore, it would be unable to breathe for any life up the sky. But, surprisingly, Prophet Mohamed went up to the sky with Burakh to talk to Allah. But, how did Mohamed inhale (through Oxygen mask and Cylinder???) and operate the super speedy rocket Burakh? If almighty Allah created this vast Universe, why didn't he expose that any type of species can NOT take breathe after crossing up a certain height from the sea level? As we know through sciences that no Planet is appropriate other than the Earth for lives in the Universe. But, how much gas can be found in the seven Heavens? We know these stay far way from the Earth's surface.

8) Test Tube and Cloning Baby: How would merciful Allah tolerate when Kaffir scientists steal his formula to create human or other species through the test tube and cloning? Did this super powerful God ever mention or know that people (of course Kaffirs) can give birth human baby or other species by cloning and using test tubes without His permission? Can any Muslims demonstrate me any related verses from Holy Koran?

9) Religion Other Than Islam, Jewish, and Christian: Allah is almighty, no doubt of it. But, there are numerous people from other religions who do not have any faith in Allah. They believe different Gods of course other than Him. If we have to believe in Him, now my question is why almighty Allah did not specifically mention about Shik (Punjabi), religions of the tribes' such as Chakma, Garo; Native American Indians' religions, Hinduisms, and many other religions. Does He really know there could be various religions other than Islam, Jewish and Christian? Or He did not want to tell us His competitors.

10) Creation of the Earth and Heaven: There is no doubt to all Muslims that Allah is almighty, but He is confused how many days he took to create the Earth and Heaven. In some Surah, he mentioned he takes two days (41:9), and in other some Surahs (11:7, 10:3 & 7:54), He quotes six days. Why wasn't powerful Allah able to create the Earth and Heaven at a precise day? And why does He make mistakes to state the correct days in Holy Koran?

11) Creation of Human Beings: Almighty Allah plays a game with His followers. He mentioned that we are created from clot of congealed blood (96:2, 75:38). A blood clot can NOT develop anything. New modern sciences state that the formation of human embryo is a seamless continuation from conception to the birth, so, there are no rigid boundaries of stages as Allah told. According to the modern embryologists including Prof. Moore of Canada, the creation of bones and clothing of bones with flesh is the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle (flesh) develops. Thus, bone and muscles begin to develop at the same time; it is nothing but true that this does not follow Allah's theory. In addition, most of the muscle tissues that we human have are laid down before birth, however bones keep on expanding and fortifying (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. Therefore, it would make sense if almighty said that muscles starts developing at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only completely wrong or false in a scientific way, but also this theory was directly stolen from the ancient Greek Doctor Galen's hypothesis. Is it possible to believe in this powerful God who steals the theory from someone? Does almighty Allah really know how we are created?

12) Fate of Pre-Islamic and Other People: What would be to the people who died before Islam come to this mortal Earth? Do they go to Hell or Heaven? Did almighty Allah send any messages regarding the afterlife for pre-Islamic people? And did he disclose any clear verses about the afterlife of those who do not even know Islam like Eskimos, Red-Indians (Native American Indian), Latinos, Native Australians, various types of tribes, and many more? If those people whether go to Heaven or Hell, why should they go, for what reasons? Did almighty Allah ever know them? Did He give us any specific detail information for them in Holy Koran?

13) Species Other Than Human-Being: Almighty and merciful Allah just knows how to create (of course in a wrong process) human being with clotted blood (?) by using His own formula. However, He did not mention even a single word how He creates other species such as dinosaurs, cows, apes, fish, and so on. Biologically, they have lives like us. It would be so funny to trust a super powerful God like Allah who does not even know and mention how other species are created?

14) The Trees'/Plants' Lives: It is ridiculous that almighty Allah did/does not know the trees/plants have lives. Muslims are not allowed to place even an image which has life like people and animals. This is why Muslims are permitted to put only the portraits of flowers and plants in the Masques and homes. Several hundred years back, for the first time, a kaffir scientist proved that trees/plants have lives just like us. This kaffir scientist could recognise it, but it chills our bones when super powerful merciful Allah does not even have any knowledge about it.

15) The Gloomy and Foggy Weather: Muslims' religious occasions and rituals depend on the Sun and Moon. Did almighty Allah or Arabians ever see any heavy fog or snow in Arab Deserts? How Muslims other than Arabians would see the Sun and Moon for Namaz, Roza, and Eid if they experience cloudy and smoggy weather from their lands? Why did an almighty substance fail to show the correct path to handle the cloudy and hazy climate to watch the Sun and Moon for rituals? In this case, what should we do? Can anyone explain this?



I asked these above prudent facts to some highly educated Muslims, they were so angry at me first; however, when they were not able to figure those out, they said to me "the problems which are not given in Koran, the Hadiths solved them". Well, that's fine; let me tell you here my reply to them "the problems in which almighty Allah was not able or failed to fix them, how can the Hadiths do? These Hadiths even were NOT written by Prophet Mohamed. Some illiterate Shahabis wrote them." Alright, now, could anyone please show me the correct way for those above 15 claims from the Hadiths besides Holy Koran? If any infidel or non-Muslim wants to accept Islam in the 21st century, she or he would definitely want to know at least those above 15 facts. If one does not care them, she or he would absolutely be the slave of Arab Bedouins in the cave.

(Note: If you have any doubt on my write-up, please visit these links Super-Scientific Religious Scriptures! and Contradictions. I hope you will easily find some related verses from Holy Koran. Or for entire information please click here to read the Koran.)





Islam Watch

Israel Didn’t Kill Arafat

Rumors that Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon responsible for Arafat’s death false.

by Dov Weisglass

Yasser Arafat died six years ago. Ariel Sharon viewed him as one of Israel’s worst enemies and held him responsible for the outbreak of the second Intifada. Hence, we invested great diplomatic efforts in order to convince the world, and mostly the US Administration, of the vital need to keep him away from ruling the Palestinian Authority in practice – for the sake of the Israelis, the Palestinians, and mostly for salvaging what appeared as a slim chance for peace at the time.

We explained that even if Arafat does not “squeeze the trigger” himself, he creates a culture of terror, nurtures a regime of armed gangs, guides and encourages murders and riots, and mostly, funds terror. We handed over plenty of information on these issues to the Americans. His lies in denying his involvement in purchasing the Karin A weapon-smuggling ship combined with accurate Israeli intelligence information about his personal role in funding a specific terror attack prompted the US Administration to conclude that as long as Arafat is in place, there will be no peace, security, or calm.

As a result of this, President George W. Bush declared in June 2002 that a different Palestinian leadership was needed, urging the Palestinian people to choose a new leadership that does not accept terror.

The absolute American boycott, the ongoing pressure on European leaders to join it, and Israel’s decision to shun any global visitors who came to meet him combined to remove Arafat from the decisive position of influence he held up until then. Simultaneously, a different, responsible leadership emerged in the PA that succeeded, among other things due to massive global aid, to bring quiet, security, stability, and economic prosperity. All of that would not have happened under Arafat’s rule.

Operation called off
Even though Sharon viewed the termination of Arafat’s active leadership as a vital political and security need, he never permitted to physically harm him. All the rumors that Israel is “responsible” for his death are foolish lies. I recall that at the end of 2003, Israel was discussing a certain military move within Arafat’s offices. Once the army made it clear to Sharon that the site held dozens of gunmen and that Arafat may be hurt in the gunfight, the operation was called off.

Even after Arafat fell ill, Sharon acted decently towards him. In a late-night meeting, during a meeting in Brussels with EU foreign minister Javier Solana, an urgent phone call was received from a senior Palestinian official. Arafat is very sick and must be taken out of Ramallah for medical tests. His office is surrounded by IDF forces. Will Israel permit him to leave?

I phoned Sharon at his home, and he promptly gave his approval. The next day, Solana called again: The doctors believed Arafat’s illness is grave and he must be flown to Europe. Will Israel allow him to depart, and most importantly, to return? I called Sharon from the train en route to London. He asked for some time to weigh the request. He explained that according to the defense establishment, Arafat’s medical condition is not that grave, and added that “we have no interest in him again traveling in Europe and worldwide.”

Meanwhile, a senior Palestinian official who maintained good ties with us called, and said that according to the doctors Arafat is about to die. Should this happen in Ramallah, after Israel prevented treatment abroad, he said, “just like for 2,000 years you were trying to explain that you did not crucify Jesus, for the next 2,000 years you will be explaining that you are not responsible for Arafat’s death.”

I phoned Sharon and informed him of this. He sure knew how to make a decision: “Inform Solana that we’ll permit him to leave,” he ruled immediately. This happened, and the rest is history.





Ynet News

What About Recognition in Israel?

Without Palestinian recognition of Jewish state, what’s the point of negotiations?

by Benny Levy

The commotion around the extended settlement freeze diverts attention away from the additional price Israel is apparently required to pay for the benefit package promised to Netanyahu: Renouncing the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state before entering talks. The prime minister, who presented this demand a few weeks ago, has gone silent as of late; yet without such initial recognition, it’s unclear what will be discussed in the talks.

Starting with discussion on borders and security arrangements, as the Palestinians and Americans demand, is akin to conducting negotiations where the sides are discussing the price, number of installments, their date etc., without first agreeing whether they are selling or leasing the asset. If it’s a sale, the seller will no longer have any rights for the asset. In a lease, the lessee is expected to, and entitled to, demand the asset again in the future.

This is the point of introductory clauses in contracts. There, the sides present their joint interests, which come before the negotiations. For example, as side A is interested in offering an apartment for rent, and side B is interested in renting an apartment, the sides agree to…(and here come the contract clauses to be decided on during negotiations.)

The introduction to the “dream agreement” with the Palestinians should say that as the sides are interested in ending the conflict, and as they view the State of Israel as the Jewish people’s state, and the future state to be established as the Palestinian people’s state, they agree to the following (borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.) Yet the Palestinians say they will refuse to such introduction. Abbas and Erekat truly disparage such possibility, and Yasser Abed Rabbo, who seemingly presented a different position, has no authority anyway.

More demands in future
Does this mean there is no room for negotiations? Not necessarily. However, in the absence of such recognition, there is no guarantee that in the future the Palestinians won’t demand more rights in Israel. The conflict may be reignited, and this should be taken into account when crafting the details of the agreement.

Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, had it been offered openly to the world – to Israel, the Arab world, nations of the world, and international institutions – would have allowed Israel to show flexibility on the question of borders and assume risks on the security front. Alternately, should the Palestinians not recognize Israel as the Jewish state, this will necessitate wholly different agreements. Making the Palestinians’ intention clean is therefore a required element, rather than a precondition, for holding the negotiations.

Two main questions are being raised. First, why does Israel need its identity to be defined by an external element? The answer to this effort to play dumb is that this isn’t about Israel’s identity decided by the Palestinians, but rather, a clarification that when embarking on talks they agree that “two states for two peoples” means Israel to the Jews and Palestine to the Palestinians. This is a highly important element in drafting the clauses of the agreement. It also affects the refugee issues and presents the hope that should an agreement be reached, it would put an end to the conflict.

And the second question – why wasn’t such recognition demanded in the past from Egypt and Jordan – is also an effort to play dumb. The Jordanians and Egyptians did not demand Israel’s territories and did not educate their sons on the ethos of “the key to our old house in Jaffa.” The absence of an explicit recognition by Jordan and Egypt of Israel as the Jewish State did not constitute an implied rejection, as exists in the Palestinian positions. Moreover, Egypt and Jordan did not engage in negotiations that were all about vagueness, doublespeak, and untruth.

Embarking on negotiations before first agreeing what the sides’ intentions are will amount to a repeat of the Oslo agreement, whose result was – in the words of Yitzhak Rabin, may he rest in peace – “more holes than cheese.”

Benny Levy is the founder of the Shiva non-profit organization dedicated to imparting the Zionist idea





Ynet News

Israel slates missile shield for 2015

Eyeing Iran, Israel slates missile shield for 2015

Production schedule of defense network combining rocket interceptors, kamikaze satellites corresponds to Israel's assessment of when Iran might develop nuclear weaponry. Project director: We are talking about hermetic protection.

Israel's multi-layered air defense network will be fully deployed by 2015, combining short-range rocket interceptors with kamikaze satellites that blow up ballistic missiles in space, officials said on Monday.

Unveiled at a government-sponsored aerospace conference in Jerusalem, the production schedule corresponds to Israel's assessment of when Iran might develop nuclear weaponry.


Should the Islamic republic get the bomb, which could embolden allies Syria and Lebanese and Palestinian guerrillas in their own fights against the Jewish state.

"In the next two to five years, we will turn this vision into a reality," Colonel Zvika Haimovitch of the Israeli air defense corps said in a speech. "Within the coming five years, we will see this doctrine implemented."

Spurred by Hezbollah salvoes in the 2006 Lebanon war, Israel developed Iron Dome, which shoots down rockets with ranges of 5 to 70 km (3 to 45 miles). David's Sling, an interceptor for more powerful rockets, should be ready by 2013, Haimovitch said.

The next tier of the shield is Israel's Arrow interceptor, which has been operational for a decade and is designed to knock out Iranian or Syrian ballistic missiles at high altitudes.

An Arrow III upgrade will launch a booster-rigged satellite beyond Earth's atmosphere to collide with the missile, said project director Yoav Turgeman of state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).

"We are talking about hermetic protection," Turgeman said. "Even if the new Arrow misses the incoming threat, it will be far enough from Israel's borders to allow for a secondary interception."

'Enemy has achieved aerial supremacy'
Turgeman said Arrow III, which like its predecessors is being underwritten by the United States, would be ready by 2014 or 2015. Its first live trial is expected in 2011. The projected cost of each interceptor missile is $2 million to $3 million.

Arrow III had previously been swathed in secrecy. Asked about the decision to go public with it at the International Aerospace Conference and Exhibition, an Israeli defense official said: "Everything was done with the full backing and initiative of the Defense Ministry, given the current state of affairs."

He appeared to be referring to Iran's uranium enrichment in defiance of international pressure to curb the process, which can produce fuel for bombs. Tehran says it is for energy only.

Though the Israelis have hinted they could attack Iran pre-emptively, there are big tactical and diplomatic hurdles.

The missile shield -- which officials envisage patching in, when needed, to US interceptors such as Aegis -- suggests Israel is weighing a more defensive posture, girded with the deterrence offered by its own assumed atomic arsenal.

Among the advantages of Arrow III cited by Turgeman was that its interception of a nuclear missile would not produce toxic debris, as this would burn up on re-entering Earth's atmosphere. Such planning is hard to reconcile with Israel's vow, dating back decades, to deny its enemies access to nuclear weaponry.

Arrow veteran Uzi Rubin raised another possible disincentive to a pre-emptive Israeli attack now: retaliation by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas guerrillas from Gaza.

In the absence of reliable air defenses, Rubin said in a speech, Israeli cities can be hit by as many as 13,000 rockets and missiles, some accurate to within 500 meters (yards) and carrying warheads with as much as a half-ton of explosives.

The greater Tel Aviv area alone could expect to suffer 1,500 strikes -- enough to guarantee damage to military headquarters, paralyze the economy and gut morale. Dozens of Iraqi Scud missiles sowed chaos in Tel Aviv during the 1991 Gulf war.

Rubin said the face-off risked forcing a de facto parity on Israel, which has long relied on overwhelming force of arms to compensate for its geographical smallness and numerous foes.

"The enemy has achieved aerial supremacy without even having planes," Rubin said.





Ynet News

Proud to Be Muslims?

By Imran Hossain

imranhossainbd@hotmail.com

Go discuss any religious topic with Muslims anywhere; most of them would frequently tell you, "You have to be proud to be a Muslim". I learn the same item whenever I argue with my Muslim friends, relatives, colleagues etc. on internet (MSN messenger chat), phone, or in person. Now, I am tired of listening to that phrase. To answer that ridiculous dialogue I've got some questions with the letters, "WH". These are, "why do we have to be proud to be Muslims?", "what have we done?", and "who are we?". Please let me response those questions in several paragraphs below.

1) How many scientists, astronauts, biologists etc. do we find from our Muslim background? General senses and statistics tell us about 95% scientists and astronauts are from the Jewish and Christian backgrounds and about 4.9 % from other backgrounds. Aren't these innovative people making the world smaller and smaller with their wits? I think I am absolutely right on it. Where can I find Muslims amongst those creative people?

Are we Muslims still proud of being nothing?

2) The modern equipments, automotives, appliances etc. we are now using such as computers, internet, Windows and other software, telephones, TVs, radios, clocks, A/Cs, freezes, aeroplanes, cars, trains; taking allopathic medicines, having modern treatments; wearing comfortable stuffs like shirt-pant, underwear, eyewear, durable shoes, and many more stuffs for our daily needs. Can we survive well now without those useful stuffs and technology in this century?

Can anyone show me the strong evidence that any of those things are invented by Muslims? Are we Muslims in any discovery or progressive work?

I do not think so.

Are we still proud of this failure?

3) We had somewhat better economy only for 24 years looooooong time ago within 1400 years when there was a secular state rather than Islamic. How many countries are now economically strong in 57 Muslim nations? Unlike Saudi Arab, UAE Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, these countries are rich for nothing but petro-dollar. They could never be wealthy unless the West helps them to raise oil from the deserts. And in Malaysia, the most industries are owned by the Chinese origin people. That's why it's got typical better economy. How about the rest of the Muslim countries? Like 65 % people can not even eat properly in those places.

Are we still proud of our collapsed economy?

4) What are some of the true (pukka) Muslim brothers doing? Our brothers do suicide bombing, hijack aeroplanes etc. inspired by our religion to shed blood of the innocent people. The whole world is now scared of Jihadi Organisations.

Who are making these barbaric work?

No-one but our brothers!!!

Are we still proud of the bloody jobs?

5) Because of some of our Muslim brothers only, there are extra security forces in the West. In addition, USA has launched fingerprint system lately at the airports and the crossing points; US immigration and air carriers have produced some special types of software which promptly recognise all Muslim names. As well, recently, airlines like British Airways had to cancel some flights to the US continent for the possible security threats. Why are these all happening for? Just for our Muslim brothers!!!

Are we still proud of these humiliations?

6) Our brothers, the real Muslim people from Middle East do not give citizenships even to the guest Muslims although someone is born in those vast deserts. In addition, countries like Saudi Arabia and other some Middle Eastern countries grant social benefits upon sexes, races and religions.

Shall we still speak out that we are proud of the rude discrimination?

7) I have a lot of friends in North America who are Shiks, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews and many others. I wonder why I always get to hear the same outdated folk stories only from Muslims such as praising the great leaders Saddam Hussein and Arafat; criticising Israel, USA, and Bush's policies always; who is winning or losing in next US elections?; Jews leaders and their influences in USA etc. It is really amazing!!!

I never hear these types of rubbish criticisms from my other non-Muslim friends.

So, shall we still be proud of our identical holy thinking?

8) Actually, who are we? How do we learn Islam? How do get to raise our voice? As a matter of fact, our ancestors are brainwashed by the Arab Bedouins several hundred years ago that's how we are now Muslims. Since then, we try to become the typical followers of Prophet Mohamed, and we start believing in almighty Allah and Holy Koran. I believe no-one has any objection to accept this truth. No matter what there are some or many good learning materials in Koran and Mohamed's life. Please, let me not discuss other teaching parts from Koran and Mohamed for now.

By the way, can we Muslims even utilize the good parts from Koran and Hadiths?

These books strongly teach us NOT to cheat, lie, do bribery, do corruptions etc. However, what results do we see in the Muslim world? Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. climb the top positions for corruptions. In addition, leaders like Yasir Arafat, Arabian Royals and so on are exploiting their national revenue. On average da! ta, the rape rate in the Muslim countries is much higher than non-Muslim nations. Actually, there are lots more things to write on corruptions and crimes. Anyways, where are the wonderful ingredients of Islam here? Who fails to keep the Koran's and Mohamed's those priceless doctrines? Of course, we Muslims fail to organise the law and order situation in our lands. Again, my dear readers, I get the saaaaaaaame thing to tell you why we should emphatically say we are proud to be Muslims.

Now, some Islamists might want to beat me that why I blame all Muslims because of few bigots. However, I do not impose all criticisms on all Muslims. Please let me clarify a possible claim of some Islamists or Muslims: it is good to hear that they do not like the terrorisms of some of our brothers. But, when USA and UK increase securities in their lands, take some necessary steps against terrorisms, and go fighting with our terrorist brothers, then why do those Islamists or most Muslims defy USA and UK, and keep supporting our terrorist brothers? During the war on terrorism in 2001, I observed from different sources that approximately 95% Muslims around the world was against the Anglo-American war. Now, which one I should choose from possible comments: hating or supporting terrorist brothers? I am not a fool I would pick both of them. Whatsoever, in fact, the main thing is nothing but most Muslims are affected with Islamic virus (SKM's idea). These days, it would be the funniest thing to claim that "we are proud to be Muslims" without any strong reasons.

Some Bangladeshi illiterate Mullahs told me few years ago "those who believe humans are originally generated from the monkeys (Darwin's theory); those people are really from the monkeys. But, we believe in Allah, so we are NOT from the monkeys. Allah sends us to this earth". As we know, almost all Muslims have the same ideas, and they frequently invite us to cry out that "we are proud to be Muslims", so, who really knows, those Mullahs' idea might not be wrong.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s on Sex with Children and Animals

The leader of the Iranian Revolution in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote extensively on Islamic Jurisprudence. A two-volume book, which was published originally in Arabic, was called ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.” (read entire text here.) Khomeini also had another treatise on Islamic rules for living, called in English, “The Little Green Book.”
(see entire text here.)

It is useful to understand what an esteemed Islamic leader such as the Ayatollah teaches his followers.

Here are some excerpts from “Tahrirolvasyleh” which Muslims probably don’t want you to know about Islam:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.

Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not.

If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.

During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman’s vagina or a man’s anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.

A woman who has contracted a continuing marriage does not have the right to go out of the house without her husband’s permission; she must remain at his disposal for the fulfilment of any one of his desires, and may not refuse herself to him except for a religiously valid reason. If she is totally submissive to him, the husband must provide her with her food, clothing, and lodging, whether or not he has the means to do so. A woman who refuses herself to her husband is guilty, and may not demand from him food, clothing, lodging, or any later sexual relations; however, she retains the right to be paid damages if she is repudiated.

If a father (or paternal grandfather) marries off his daughter (or granddaughter) in her absence without knowing for a certainty that she is alive, the marriage becomes null and void as soon as it is established that she was dead at the time of the marriage.

It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her. ["The Little Green Book"]

If a man commits adultery with an unmarried woman, and subsequently marries her, the child born of that marriage will be a bastard unless the parents can be sure it was conceived after they were married. A child born of an adulterous father is legitimate.Ali [son in law of Mohammed], having cut off the hands of two thieves, treated their wounds and offered them his hospitality, and this affected them so much that they became utterly devoted to him; or again when he heard that the marauding army of Muawiyah had abused a woman of one of the tribes, he was so upset and moved to pity he declared: “If a man died after such an occurrence, no one could blame him.” And yet, despite a nature as sensitive as that, Ali bared his sword and hacked the perpetrators to pieces. This is the meaning of justice.- “The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious” (The Little Green Book), ISBN number 0-553-14032-9.

Pedophilia is legal in Iran.... and Islam

In June, 2002 Iranian authorities approved a law raising the age at which girls can marry without parental consent from 9 to 13. The elected legislature actually passed the bill in 2000, but the “Guardian Council”, a 12-man body of conservative clerics, vetoed it as contradicting Islamic Sharia law. Iran’s clerical establishment insists that the marriage of young girls is a means to combat immorality. The Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the elected parliament and the theocratic Guardian Council, timidly passed the measure. The law however does not change the age at which children can get married (nine for girls and 14 for boys), but says that girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents’ permission and the approval of a “Righteous Court.” Reformists state that the new law does not protect children, since most of those who marry at such a young age do so by force.

A religious decree by Khomeini ordered that girl prisoners who are virgins must be raped before execution, to prevent them from entering heaven. A Guard conducts the rape the night before execution. The next day, a marriage certificate is issued by a mullah, who sends it to the girl’s family, along with a box of chocolates as a wedding gift.

It is quite common in Iran for older men to marry children, as long as they pay the appropriate bride-price to the girl’s family. This basically means that a father can sell his daughter to whomever he wants, whilst the mad mullahs see this as a means of maintaining purity. We prefer to call this child prostitution and rape, especially given that Iran’s clerics approve of the ‘tradition’ of ‘temporary marriage’ (Mut’a), which can last less than 24 hours and may be repeated as many times as desired. This form of exploitation is widespread and legitimises sex with young children. The man may even visit his temporary wife every weekend at her father’s house, for about $10 per visit.

Khomeini on prostitution and Mut’a (temporary marriage)

“It ispermissible to do Mut’a with an adulteress, but with aversion, particularly if she is a well-known prostitute. If Mut’a is done with her, she should be told to give-up her profession.”

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"



Additions:

1) BBC, Friday, 24 February 2006:
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

2) March 15, 2010:
Gulf News reports that a guard has been arrested for having sex with the animals he was guarding on a farm. Muslim readers writing in to comment in the newspaper want to to know if the animals are still fit for eating.