Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Archive for the ‘Muhammad’ Category

Islam: The Arab National Movement by Anwar Shaikh

Posted by jagoindia on June 20, 2010

Anwar Shaikh’s Interview with Chandigarh Times on The Arab National Movement

Dr. Ranjit Kanwar,  Chandigarh Times,  May 24, 1996

Ranjit Kanwar: We have heard your name in India, yet we do not know much about you. Will you tell me something about yourself?

Anwar Shaikh: I was born in 1928 in a village near the-city of Gujrat (Pakistan). Religion has been a part of my family tradition. Naturally, I was brought up to be a scholar of Islam: To the best of my knowledge, it was my great great grandfather, who embraced Islam.

He was a kashmiry pundit. After conversion, he became an Imam Masjid, a fervent preacher of Islam. My grandfather was conscious of his Brahmin ancestry, – . . and resented if anyone spoke ill of the Vedas yet he could not return to his roots owing to the psychological grounding he had received over the years. In Pakistan, I was a teacher and then became headmaster of a high school. Though economically,’ life was bearable, socially, it was not. I emigrated to great Britain in 1956.

After initial hardships struck lucky. At the height of business success, I suddenly realized that I wanted to do some reformative work instead of indulging in money-making it was in 1973 that I started winding up my commercial activities, and am glad that I did so because it gave me a chance to reeducate myself, especially in philosophy and religion.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have read your book: ” Islam, The Arab National Movement ” which is becoming world-famous rapidly. Did you write it to oppose Islam?

Anwar Shaikh: Its purpose is not to oppose, but expose Islam: it is a serious work based on long research and personal experience There is not one word of lie, insolence or intentional misinterpretation in this book. Since it is based on truth and nothing but the truth; it is an open challenge to those who use Islam as the tool of personal gain, politically and religiously. So great is the force and authenticity of this book that no Muslim scholar has come forward so far to refute its Contents.

Ranjit Kanwar: Are you another Rushdie?

Anwar Shaikh: I am being labeled as such. For example, the Urdu daily: “Pakistan” and weekly “Maharat” of Lahore, have called me “a Satan of much greater stature than Rushdie and Tasleema,” and The Daily “Jang” of London has described me “a Rushdie whose writings are infinitely more dangerous to Islam than Rushdie and Tasleema put together.” The Muslim readers of the “Jang” have written to this newspaper repeatedly begging the mullahs and other scholars of Islam to answer my questions to “save”-but they have deliberately kept quiet to the utter annoyance of the believers, who are really worried by the contents of “Islam, The Arab National Movement”. They demonstrated against Rushdie in every country through public meetings, processions, slogans and murders, but about my book they have willfully observed a conspiracy of silence because they do not want the world to know the truth about Islam. This clearly shows that I am the exact opposite of Rushdie. His work is fiction based on insult to the Prophet Mohammed and his family, whereas my book is a serious work founded on scholarship; reason and research. At the most, Rushdie is an artistic protester whereas I am a challenger to the very concept of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: I see. But has your book any relevance to India?

Anwar Shaikh: My book has a relevance to entire mankind, but is especially to India because before the coming of Islam, India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units. This book clearly demonstrates that, as Islam seeks to impose Arab cultural imperialism on other nations through a doctrine of divide and murder, India and Islam cannot live together. This book is a must for India.

Ranjit Kanwar: Do you realize that this book exposes you to serious danger? Aren’t you afraid?

Anwar Shaikh: The truth has its price, which I am prepared to pay. I have not resorted to swearing or falsification simply to uphold the dignity of truth. Fear is a part of human nature and it will be wrong of me to deny it. However, I must add that by making me a martyr, they will sound the death-knell of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It is a revolutionary book with profound consequences. What prompted you to write it?

Anwar Shaikh: This is an excellent question and proves your competence as a journalist. Having lived in the West for such a long time, one day it crossed my mind why the white people love their countries but the Muslims of India hate their motherland. There is no exaggeration in it because they think of Bharat not as their Motherland but Dar-ul-Harb i=2Ee. battlefield, where people murder, plunder and deceive out of hatred and greed. Having given this point further thought I soon realized that Islam is based on the doctrine of hating and murdering non-Muslims and reducing them to the status of political slaves. It is totally false to say that Islam is the ambassador of international brotherhood.

Again, it is completely untrue that the Muslims of all countries are one nation. It is the law of nature that nationality is constituted by blood ties and geographical boundaries, that is, the homeland. A nation being an expanded form of family is subject to the familial rules of identity. Of Course, a person can adopt another nationality quite legitimately but it is an exception, and there fore, cannot change the basic rule. Calling Muslims of all countries as one nation is wrong because all these nations have their separate home lands with their independent interests and different policies. Pakistan was soon split into two halves i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government of Pakistan in 1951 stopped entry of all Indian Muslims into Pakistan despite the fact that they were the people who had made most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan even more shameful is the treatment of Pakistanis from Bihar, who stood by Pakistan against the Bangladeshis.

Muslim nationality is a myth, which is extremely injurious to the non-Arab Muslims but highly beneficial to the Arabs. nd this is what leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is not a religion but the Arab National Movement.

Ranjit Kanwar: Good lord! Is it what Islam is? Do you mind explaining this point a bit further?

Anwar Shaikh: The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious. This is exactly the theory that Karl Marx adopted after many centuries. Presenting his dialectical view of history; he emphasized that all material progress owed itself to eternal social strife between the capitalists and the proletariats in which the latter would win the struggle.

However, Karl Marx did not show the mastery that the prophet Mohammed did. By creating the Two Nation Theory, he subjected all non-Muslim Arabs to the cultural imperialism of Arabia. He achieved this purpose with a mind boggling subtlety: he made Arab- worship the cornerstone of Islam. Thus. those who embrace Islam naturally feel inferior to Arabia as a devotee believes in relation to his goddess.

Ranjit Kanwar: This is an unusual explanation of Islam. Can you tell me how the Prophet Mohammed raised reverence of Arabia sky-high and made it an artist of faith for his non-Arab followers?

Anwar Shaikh: Here is a small summary of the steps that the Prophet took to realize his dream.

1. e declared that when Adam was evicted from paradise, he came to Mecca where he built the first House of God. Thus, he identified Godliness with Kaaba, a Sanctuary of Mecca where God lives! Not only that, Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, also came to Mecca to rebuild the House of God!

2. For the purpose of imposing Arab psychological superiority on non-Arab Muslims, he decreed that they must prostrate five-times-a-day facing Mecca. This is not only an act of submission to Mecca, the capital city of Arabia, but also proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God lives in Mecca, otherwise why should people prostrate in that direction?

3. A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.

4. When Muslims die, they must be buried facing Mecca, which is the guarantee of their salvation.

5. To make sure that the Arabs enjoy economic opulence, the Prophet made Hajj as obligatory ritual for his followers. It is a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are countless Indian Muslims who sell their homes and personal belongings to undertake this journeys can give many more examples to this effect but this should be enough to explain the real purpose of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It does show the Arab national tendency of Islam, but the non-Arab followers of Islam do not have to adopt a slavish attitude to the Arab national Institutions to prove their Islamic faith. Do they?

Anwar Shaikh: I regret to say, Sir, like countless non-Muslims, you do not know the master stroke of the Prophet.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have never heard of this master stroke before. Can you enlighten me in the interest of humanity?

Anwar Shaikh: I am referring to the prophet’s declaration that Allah has made him the Model of Practice for his followers it has come to mean that the Muslims must copy him in everything, they must eat, drink, walk and talk like him, even must look like him, that is, they grow beard like his, have a similar hair-cut and dress like him. This is what is called followings the Sunnah .i.e., the Prophetic: Model which is the guarantee of salvation. One can easily say that Islam has been designed to induce respect and love for Arabia.

There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned from their own nationalities and motherlands, and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory., Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh).

Ranjit Kanwar: What is likely to happen if the non-Arab Muslims do not follow the Prophet in loving Arabia even if it involves unpatriotic practices against their own homelands?

Anwar Shaikh: The Muslims must love Arabia because the Prophet did so. They must follow him as the Divine Model of Practice. This is what Islam expects if don’t, they are sure to enter hell because the Prophet will not intercede on their behalf.

Ranjit Kanwar: What is intercession?

Anwar Shaikh: This is the special power of the Prophet Mohammed. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgment. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet. On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been.

Piety has no meaning and value without believing in Mohammed and the greatness of his homeland. Intercession is the climax of the Prophet’s National wisdom–It is this Muslim belief which gives them the hope of free sex and economic abundance, and they feel obliged to kill in the name of Islam. This is why they are ever ready to stab their motherland. After all, caring about one’s country entails sacrifices whereas the comforts of paradise are sweet and splendid. And it is especially so when they involve no moral responsibility.

Ranjit Kanwar: Poor India! “Islam, The Arab National Movement” seems to be the book, not only for every Indian, irrespective of his religion, but also for every Pakistani and Bangladeshi as well. After all, they all belong to the Indian subcontinent. What have you done to propagate its contents?

Anwar Shaikh: By writing this book, I have discharged my duty. Its propagation, I believe, is a duty of every one.

Ranjit Kanwar: Will you be prepared to allow translations of this book into various languages without expecting any financial reward?

Anwar Shaikh: I shall be delighted to do so provided such a task is undertaken for public good, and not as a trade.
Islam: The Arab National Movement by Anwar Shaikh
Anwar Shaikh, a great mind of 20th century, whose grim discoveries about Islam shook the world, passed away on November 25, 2006. Anwar Shaikh was born on June 1, 1928 in Gujrat, the then greater India. His family was extremely religious, which influenced him to follow Islam with passion. In 1947, India was in a process of independence from Britain, and Muslims and Hindus were in a civil war. At this time, Anwar Shaikh, a young Muslim zealot killed two Sikhs and one Hindu without any remorse. His religious conviction was akin to that of a typical Muslim Jihadist, of the sort we see today.

However, at the age of 25, Anwar saw the light of humanity and left Islam

Information on  Anwar Shaikh via link
ISLAM: The Arab National Movement
by Anwar Shaikh

The Prophet Muhammad
Now, I may explain this theme further with reference to Allah, the God of Muhammad, the Arabian prophet:

Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Abd al Muttalib Ibn Hashim, the founder of Islam and the Arab Empire, was born in Mecca c. 570 A.D. after the death of his father. First, he was under the care of his paternal grandfather, and when he died, Abu Talib, his uncle, became his guardian. When he was six, he lost his mother, Aminah. He was married to Khadijah of the clan of Asad. This association which lasted for twenty-six years, was a happy one.

Muhammad belonged to the clan of Hashim which was a part of the tribe of Quresh, and inhabited Mecca where Muhammad was born. Though Mecca was a small town, it was a mercantile centre, and was respected for its sanctuary known as the Kaaba. The Quresh were descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, and claimed that it was Abraham, accompanied by Ishmael, who built the temple of Kaaba, for worship of God but it became the focus of idolatory, which lasted for many centuries. Muhammad died on June 8, 632.

Muhammad was accustomed to retiring to a desert cave called Hira where he reflected on the mysteries of creation. During 610 A.D. when he was meditating in the Hira, an angel of God, called Gabriel, appeared before him and said:

Read: In the name of thy Lord who createth. Createth man from a clot.
Read: And it is thy Lord the Most bountiful who teacheth pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not.

This was a written message from Allah. When Gabriel told Muhammad to read it, he said that he was illiterate and could not read it. Thereupon the angel caught him by the throat and commanded him again to read. Thrice Muhammad expressed his inability to read and thrice the angel choked him. He was extremely frightened. It was his wife, Khadijah, who told him that the “spirit” he saw was a good one, and not the devil. She assured him that he had been chosen by God as His prophet. Even then he needed a lot of persuation to accept the mission of prophethood.

Here is the old Semitic tradition of revelation at work, which requires a prophet to accept the apostolic dignity under duress. In the case of the Prophet Muhammad, it is even more amazing because the All-knowing Allah wants the illiterate Muhammad to read His message!

Islam was the name that the Prophet Muhammad gave his religion. Therefore, following the Semitic tradition, he had to find a deity that inspired this faith. Though there is no Biblical authority for it, the Prophet asserted Islam as the true religion of God who sent Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and many other prophets to promulgate and restate it. Thus, what he advocated, he claimed, was the same old faith but it had been corrupted by the Jews. So he had no qualm in adopting most of the Jewish principles and practices with a view to renovating the old religion of God, which he called “Islam” as opposed to Judaism, and Christianity. In fact, he made a great effort to convert Jews. He adopted, not only a good deal of their creed, but also repeatedly said that God had exalted the children of Israel over the rest of mankind. As a process of this wooing, he wanted to find a name for his God that should prove attractive to the Jews, and also to the Arabs, his real people.

Scholars have remarked that the early Jews worshipped a deity called El (Gen: 16: 23; 17: 1; 21: 33; 31: 13; 35: 7; ) . Jacob erected the altar called “El-Elohe-Israel” which has been translated “El the God of Israel.” Similarly, El was the high god in the Syro-Palestinian pantheon. Again, it is argued that some biblical passages such as Deuteronomy 3 2: 8 – 9 suggest that Yahwe was believed to be a member of the huge pantheon once ruled over by El. The Arabic name for El is Allah. No name could be better for the Islamic God than Allah who was once Yahwe’s superior, and also an idol of the Quresh known as the Lord of the Kaaba.

At this juncture, I should repeat that, according to the Semitic doctrine of revelation, a prophet wants to be treated as God, but without being called so; he is also a national hero because he wants to create a band of devoted people to carry on his name.

The Prophet chose Allah as the Supreme God for national reasons. At that time, the Jews held a considerable social status in the Arabian peninsula owing to their glorious history, religious precedence, defiance of persecution and material prosperity. He knew that his people could not be lifted to a higher position unless the Jews accepted his religion and thus made to behave as if they were Arabs. Failing that, they ought to be turned into second class citizens or banished.

First, the Prophet tried to woo them by making Jerusalem, the KIBLA, and treating them with a lavish praise. For example, the Koran in the Cow 40, states:

“Children of Israel, remember my blessing
wherewith I blessed you,
and that I have preferred you above all beings..”

For converting the Jews to his faith, the Prophet adored Abraham, the common ancestor of the Jews and the Arabs to identify them as one nation. The Koran says: “The best religion has he who foilows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith, and a Friend of God.” (Woman: 120)
He went even further to address his Arab followers: “(Islam is) the creed of your father Abraham: He named you Muslims.” (The Pilgrimage: 75)

When the Jews ignored this loving approach, they were enveloped by the apostolic wrath. The Prophet demoted Jerusalem as the Kibla of the Muslims and bestowed this honour on Kaaba, the Arab sanctuary. He went even further tc lay a curse on the Jews:

“God has cursed them for their unbelief.” (Women: 45 )

Over the last 1400 years the Muslim scholars have interpreted this curse to mean that the Jews shall remain homeless for ever and shall never have a national government of their own. The Muslims want to drown all Israelites because the state of Israel contradicts this Koranic verse.

Since the Jews refused to be a part of the Arab nation, their condemnation as an accursed race was not sufficient. Creation of a pure nation, demanded that the Jews must be expelled from Arabia. So, the policy of ethnic cleansing was adopted, and the Jews were banished. At this juncture, one ought to remember that Islam is less a religion and more an Arab National Movement.

As now, the Jews had always been proud of their racial superiority because Yahwe, the Jewish God, had chosen them as His own people by entering into covenants with the Jewish patriarchs such as Noah and Abraham. The latter had two sons: Isaac and Ishmael. The Bible clearly declares in Genesis 17-18 that God made an everlasting covenant with Isaac, the Jewish patriarch, but the Koran states quite differently:

“We (God) made covenant with Abraham and Ishmael.” (The Cow: 115)

There is no historical evidence whatever that the Jews altered the Old Testament to this effect. They did not need to do so because this statement had existed in their Scriptures many centuries before the Koran was composed. This is how the Prophet transferred the Divine sanctity to his own nation to make them feel exalted.
Glorification of Allah by the Prophet as the supreme and the only God is a part of Arab nationalism. Firstly, as stated previously, Allah was Yahwe’s superior, thus the Arabs, the people of Allah have to be better than the people of Yahwe, the Jews. Yahwe had been proclaimed as the God of Israel, but to be better, Allah had to be the God of the universe. This is exactly what the Prophet did: thus Allah is All- knowing, All-powerful and omnipresent. The Old Testament does not claim such attributes for Yahwe.

Why was Allah proclaimed as the most glorious and the only God? It is because He was an Arab god whose statue was worshipped in the Kaaba itself for centuries. Of course, Allah was not the only god of the Kaaba, which had developed into a pantheon owing to the influences of the foreign cults. It was very much like a Hindu temple devoted to idolatory and organised on the Hindu doctrine of Triad (Trimurti) which means three-in-one. Allah had his three daughters in the Kaaba, worshipped along with him.

Kaaba, referred to as the Meccan temple by historians, was under the hereditary management of the Quresh, the Prophet’s tribe and thus gave them some sanctity as the lords of the Kaaba. It is for this reason, they (Q’uresh) were known as the People of Allah or the Protected Neighbours of Allah. Allah, the idol, even then inspired considerable veneration into the Arabian hearts, and it is quite evident from the fact that the tribes on pilgrimage to the Kaaba, were called the Guests of Allah. Despite all this divine prest ge, Allah was still a par~ of a pantheon i.e. he was one of many gods. Therefore, the Prophet emphasised the singularity of Allah and condemnation of all other gods. It should be borne in mind, that the Prophet believed the Quresh, his tribe, to be the best of all people. This is the reason that he laid it down that only the Quresh had the right to rule. I shall discuss this point in due course. At this point, it is sufficient to say that the Arabs could be an exalted nation only if they were to be blessed by the only and universal Allah who was as much Arab as Yahwe was Jewish.

Since the doctrine of revelation affects the behaviour of more than half of the population of the world, it is the major issue of religion and metaphysics. Thus, we ought to look into the psychological make-up of a revelationist i.e. a prophet, to assess whether or not he is a person of dominant nature. This must serve as a deciding factor to establish the reality of revelation itself.

For this purpose, and not any mischief or insolence, I refer to the *Hadith, that is, record of the sayings and practices of the prophet which rank as the Islamic tradition. After all, the Koran repeatedly challenges the dissenters to produce an argument to support their point or view. What I am about to say is a matter of fact to the Muslim believers owing to their faith, but what will they say about someone else who made similar claims about himself and his dynastic background? To a just person, this is the guiding principle which he should bear in mind to decide the issue for himself.

* When Moslem scholars cannot answer a question, they say that the quoted hadith is a forgery. I have taken care to avoid apocryphal hadiths.


1. “God chose as the best the children af Ishmael, the son of Abraham. From Ishmael’s descendants, God chose the Quresh (the tribe of Muhammad) as the best of people; from the Quresh, God chose the Banu Hashim (Muhammad’s clan) as the best of people, and from the Banu Hashim, God chose Muhammad as the best of all men..” (Jame Tirmze, Vol: 2 )
I ought to mention that it contradicts the Jewish claim as stated in Genesis 17: 19-21. Jews are the descendants of Isaac. They believe that he was the only legitimate son of Abraham borne by his wife, Sarah, whereas Ishmael was given birth by Hagar, an Egyptian maid-servant of Sarah, made pregnant by Abraham. God made the covenant with Isaac and not Ishmael. Giving children of Ishnnael (the Arabs) preference over the Jews, appears to be an act of nationalism. Obviously, the purpose of Islam was to make the Arabs a great nation by bestowing racial distinction on them.

2. Of the two tribes that God chose as the best were the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac. God preferred the children of Ishmael (Arabs) to the children of Isaac (the Jews). Then, God created Muhammad in the chosen tribe of Quresh (the descendants of Ishmael ) and then He chose the best family among the Quresh and created Muhammad as the best of all men. ( Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

3. Muhammad was asked when he was made prophet. He replied that he was made prophet when the body and soul of Adam were still in the making. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

According to the “Sahih Muslim” already referred to, this dignity was thrust on Muhammad when he was forty years of age. It is strange that, despite being a prophet, even before the creation of Adam, he never claimed prophethood until he attained this age. Nor did he discharge his apostolic duties for the first forty years of his life!

4. …..God has chosen Muhammad as the best of all mankind. And it is not a boast but a fact. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

5. …..On the Day of Judgement Muhammad would occupy the right hand side of God’s throne. Nobody else would be entitled or capable of doing so except him. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

6. On the Day of Judgement, ask for Muhammad as the Waseela or Refuge, that is, the person who has the power of intercession to forgive sins. Thus he would be the only person who could act as the medium to paradise. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

7. Muhammad would be the Chief of all mankind on the Day of Judgement. (Jame Tirmze Vol:2)

8. Muhammad is the first person who would be appointed as the intercessor. He would be the first person whose intercession would be accepted. It is he who would unlock the gates of paradise and would be the first to enter it, followed by his followers. He is superior to all men who were before him, or would come after him. It is not a boast but a fact. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

9. “Send Darood on the Prophet,” that is, pray to Muhammad, supplicate him and praise him. He who sends darood on Muhammad once, God blesses him ten times. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

These hadiths (the Prophet’s traditions) speak for themselves and need hardly any comment from me. However, better understanding of the subject requires that we should know Muhammad’s relationship with Allah, the Islamic God. Here are some examples.

1. Shahada is the basic doctrine of Islam. It is the confession which makes a person Muslim, the follower of Allah. It means:
Nobody has the right to be adored (worshipped) but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.

The meaning of Shahada is better understood when it is divided as follows:

Allah’s rights:

a. “Those who believe, love Allah more than anything else.” ( Baqra 12: 165 )

“Praise belongs to God,
the Lord of all Being.” ( Cattle: 45 )

b. To assert His right to praise or worship, Allah clearly states in the Koran (the Islamic Scripture):

“I have not created ….. mankind except to serve me. (The Scatterers: 55 )

At several other occasions Allah reiterates that He has created man for no purpose but worship and adore Him. It is amazing that Allah, despite being “the Creator,” “the All- knowing,” and “All-Powerful” cannot get man to adore Him the way He wants, and has to send prophets and messiahs to persuade man with the threats of hell and promises of paradise. Yet, the net result is the further division of mankind, disbelief and sin.
Since “Shirk” i.e. worshipping others with Allah, is the only unpardonable sin, it is clear that if God were really, the Creator, the All-knowing and the All-powerful, with such a burning desire for worship, He could have surely created the Obedient man. It is obviously not Allah, who desires to be worshipped; it has got to be man who wants to be treated as God and worshipped as such. This fact emerges when we look into part – 2 of Shahada, that is,

2 . Prophet’s rights:
a. Though the Prophet calls himself Allah’s ABD or slave, Allah allows him to be above His laws; for example, a Moslem is allowed to have no more than four wives at the same time but the Prophet had nine wives simultaneously.

b. Allah is willing for the Prophet to marry anybody’s widow or divorcee, but it is a monstrous act for anyone to marry the Prophet’s widow or divorcee. ( The Confederates: 50 )

c. It is a condition of polygamy that a Muslim has to be equitable towards all his wives but the Prophet can lawfully suspend any of his wives at will. (The Confederates: 50)

d. Allah is anxious to please the Prophet; He tells the believers how to enter his house, how long to stay there, and not to indulge in idle talk when they are in his house. (The Confederates: 50)

e. As I shall discuss later, Allah changed the Kibla, the direction of praying just to please the Prophet. It was certainly a major modification in a system which claims to be of divine origin. ( The Cow: 135 )

f. Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, was somewhat displeased when Khaula bint Halo, presented herself to the Prophet in marriage, but when God revealed to him:

“You may suspend any of them (Your wives) that you please” (33: 51 )
Aisha exclaimed: “…..Allah hurries in pleasing you.” (Sahih Al Bokhari Vol: 7)

g. In fact, Allah acts as Prophet’s factotum because He tells believers not to walk in front of him or raise voice above that of his. (Apartments: 1)

The Prophet was surely capable of giving such instructions himself. When one looks deeper into the relationship of the Prophet with Allah, it transpires that though the Koran originally treats Muhammad as human, gradually this relationship develops into duality and eventually, like Moses, Muhammad appears as God’s superior.
This is a delicate issue but fairness demands that the reader should weigh the arguments which I intend to offer, before jumping to hasty conclusions. The process of Muhammad converting his humanity into divinity is a long and complex one but I intend to keep the narrative brief and simple. Consider the following:

1. It is a condition of faith that a believer should love Allah, but this stipulation becomes insufficient because a person does not rank as believer until he loves the prophet “more than his father, his children and all mankind. ” (Sahih Al Bokh. vol: 1)
2. Muhammad is as great as Allah because the former like the latter, has ninety-nine attributes.

a. As Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein for being omnipresent ( QAF 15 ), “the Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves..” (The Confederates: 5)

3. Though the Prophet is projected as mortal and Allah’s servant in the beginning, but as he grows stronger, obedience to Muhammad becomes as compulsory as to Allah:

a. “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” (The House of Imran 25, 125)

b. “..whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens.” ( Women: 15 )

c. Gradually, the Prophet shares authority with Allah:

“It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have a choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger has gone astray into clear error.” (The Confederates: 35)

Having established himself as co-commandant with God, he elevates his personal grace and significance beyond description because these are the factors which have recommended him to sinners all over the world. They are:

d. “We have not sent you, except as a mercy unto all beings.” ( The Prophets: 100 )
e. To make sure that everybody obeys and copies the Prophet to the letter, the Quran declares him as the Model of Behaviour.

“You have a good example in God’s Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day.” (The Confederates: 20)

f. Originally, he had no intercessionary powers; he professed that he could not even save his daughter, Fatima whom he loved dearly. Then to enhance the appeal of his prophethood, he raised himself to the status of God:

“Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty.” ( The Darkening: 15 – 20 )

For the last many centuries, this Quranic verse has been understood to mean by both the scholars and the laity that on the Day of Judgement, God will sit an His throne and Muhammad will occupy a seat on His right hand side. Allah will give the entire intercessionary powers to Muhammad, who will decide whether a person should go to heaven or hell. The criterion of judgement shall not be the quality of deeds but who has loved the Prophet the most. The Jews will head the queue to hell, followed by the Christians. The Hindus, the Buddhists, the deists, the atheists and the rest will be equally sorry, but all murderers, rapists, robbers, arsonists, cheats, thugs, twisters, etc., who ever mentioned Muhammad’s name affectionately even once in their life-time and believed in his prophethood, would go to paradise, where each of them would be given seventy most beautiful virgins and an array of pretty youths; their virility would be increased hundred fold for appreciating Allah’s bounties.
This is the statement of fact as believed by the Moslems. I have not exaggerated it. If anything, it is an understatement.

g. Slowly, the dignity of the Prophet excels that of Allah:
“God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet. O believers, you must also bless him, and pray him peace. (The Confederates: 55)

Praying peace and blessing in a meditative manner, as most religionists do, is the essence of worshipping. The Moslems lead in this field. They, in fact, worship Muhammad, yet they claim that “praise belongs to Allah,” and think of Shirk i.e. including anyone else in praising God, as the only unforgiveable sin!
Here is something extraordinary! Instead of man worshipping God, it is God, along with His angels, who worships man, the true purpose of the device of revelation.

This narrative should expose the true nature of revelation, that is, it serves as the tool of the dominance-seeker who wants to be loved and worshipped by his fellow-men by projecting himself as God indirectly. History testifies to this fact: whenever, the Prophet had a haircut, his followers vied with one another in gathering his trimmed hair and nails as divine souvenirs; they even collected his spittle and the water in which he had washed his hands. It is because they believed in their miraculous virtues of healing and salvation.

Again, to imprint his divinity on the subconscious mind of every new-born baby, he prescribed the recitation of his name as “God’s Prophet” in its ears almost immediately at birth. The process of learning known as imprinting is said to have been discovered in 1935 by Lorenz but the Prophet knew it fourteen centuries earlier. Imprinting, in fact, is the most effective device of brain-washing. If at birth, ducklings and goslings are led to believe that man is their true father, they follow him as his offspring. Revelation is the greatest medium of brainwashing because this is the agent of faith, which shuts down all doors of reasoning.

The reader should know the type of God Allah is; He is obsessed with self-praise:

“He is God;
there is no God but He.
He is the King, the All-holy,
the All -peaceable,
the All-faithful, the All-preserver,
the All-mighty, the All-compeller,
the All-sublime.
Glory be to God, above that they associate.

He is God,
the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper,
To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful.
All that is in the Heavens and the earth
magnifies Him:
He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.”
( The Mustering: 20 )

The reader should bear in mind that it is Allah who is praising Himself, and not man. This reveals the psychological make-up of the dominance-seeker.
Now one can see that Allah is most desirous of praise; when man worships Him, He is glad but when man neglects Him, He feels sad. How unstable Allah is! To boost His ego with the sycophancy of devotees, He does things which are beyond the realm of moral thinking: He allures man with the bribe of paradise full of beautiful women and boys; He threatens dissenters with the most sadistic punishment of flaming hell, and repeatedly asserts that He is the Most Terrible Avenger and His Retributive punishment knows no bounds; He even mocks and misleads the unbelievers; He curses them and swears at them. In fact, He hates those who do not prostrate before Him and recommends their slaughter until they are wiped out or submit to His will.

Is it really the character of a true God? He cannot be the Creator. If He were, He would have created man to obey Him because praise, worship and submission are His greatest desires, whose unfulfilment makes Him so unhappy and ruffled. If He cannot make Himself happy, how can he have the ability to make other people happy? Especially, when His happiness solely depends upon the deeds of man, he cannot be God. It has got to be the revelationist who puts on the cloak of an agent but wants to be treated as God.

After stating these facts, I may describe briefly what has led to the popularity ot the Prophet Muhammad. There are three major causes of this:

1. Firstly, he was a man of indomitable spirit. His will to succeed was simply marvellous. He could feel the pulse of history, and knew how to turn its course in his favour. On top of it, he was a man of some great qualities which rarely unite in one person. Having been born in a nation which was hardy, and capable of demonstrating great martial prowess, he had the vision and wisdom to mould these virtues to make Arabs into an imperial race. People forget that Muhammad was not only a prophet but also the builder of the Arab empire; and this was an integral part of his prophethood.
2. Secondly, the Prophet built Islam around the sanctity and significance of his own person. He achieved this position through the following means:

a. He projected himself as mercy to all beings (The Prophets: 100). Thus, he created a special attraction for his person to all and sundry.
b. He expressed obedience to himself as obedience to Allah, thus giving himself a divine stature which appeared simply stunning when his followers realised that even Allah and His angels prayed peace to him.

c. He declared himself to possess intercessionary powers and expressed his ability to find a place for all his followers in the paradise where they would enjoy eternity with total delight and peace. This being every human’s greatest desire, proved very appealing, indeed.

d. He was possibly, the greatest national leader born anywhere on earth. The way he imposed the hegemony of the Arabs on the Ajams (the non-Arabs) through a device of cultural subtlety is not only stunning but also highly praiseworthy and the proof of his vision and wisdom.

Islam is essentially an Arab national movement. As far as I am aware, nobody has touched upon this apostolic aspect of the Prophet before. Therefore, I ought to discuss it in reasonable details to convey the message to the reader. The main vehicle of national fervour was his assertion that God had sent him as the Model of Behaviour (Uswa-e-Hasna) for the believers. ( Confederates: 20 )
Copying the Prophet in all details as the Model of Behaviour, was laid down as the basic doctrine for the personal conduct of every Muslim. The Prophet used it with the utmost skill to serve the cause of Arab nationalism at the expense of the other Muslim nations.

Here, the reader is entitled to ask me: “Is there real evidence to show that the Prophet was an Arab national leader, and he aimed at establishing a system of Arab imperialism?” Of course, there is. Here is the proof:

One should remember that a nationalist is not only conscientious of his origin but is usually proud of it. This test equally applies to Muhammad:

1. According to Abu Huraira, when God revealed the verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” the Prophet said in a loud voice: “O people of Quresh.”

When we look further into this act of self- identification, then we can clearly see the Prophet’s pride in his lineage. Let me requote the hadith to make this point:

God chose as the best, the children of Ishmael, the son of Abraham. From Ishmael’s descendants, God chose the Quresh (the tribe of Muhammad) as the best of people; from the Quresh, God chose the Banu Hashim (Muhammad’s clan) the best of people, and from the Banu Hashim, God chose Muhammad as the best of all men ….. ( Jame Tirmze. Vol: 2 )

The Jews have been called a keen racial group for their faith in national superiority. One can see for oneself the meaning of this hadith that I have paraphrased. Yet in another hadith, the Prophet says: “God created Muhammad in the chosen tribe of Quresh.”

As stated earlier, a prophet being desirous of dominance, needs a strong national group to perpetuate his name and teachings. This is why Moses created the Jewish nation in the name of Yahwe. The Prophet Muhammad did exactly the same thing in the name of Allah. Of course, he thought of the Banu Hashim, his own family, as the best of all families but their numbers were too small to be relied on as a racial band to continue the prophetic campaign. So Muhammad placed greater emphasis on his tribe (the Quresh) which was sufficiently powerful in numbers and secular influence.

2 . Having cal led the Quresh as the exalted people as Moses had declared the Jews as the chosen people, the Prophet put his personal stamp on the excellence of the Quresh:

a. “May Allah destroy those who intend to humiliate the Quresh.” (Jame Tirmze. Vol: 2 )
b. “O Lord, you gave the Quresh, the taste of torture (when they resisted Muhammad) but now give them the merits and blessings of this world and the world- to – come. ” ( Jame Tirmze . Vol: 2 )

c. On the authority of the Prophet, Uthman told his scribes to write The Koran “in the language of the Quresh.” ( Sahih Bokh. Vol: IV )

It shows that the Koran is in the Arabic spoken by the Quresh and not other tribes.

d. The Prophet shows an extraordinary zeal in the following hadith whose accuracy cannot be denied: …..The prerogative to rule shall remain vested in the Quresh, and whoever is hostile to them, Allah shall destroy him as long as they obey the laws of the religion.” (Sahih Bokhari. Vol: 4)

e. “The Quresh are the rulers of men in vice and virtue until the Day of Judgement.” (Sahih Tirmze. Vol: 1)

This hadith has also been narrated in volume 9 of Sahih Albukhari.

f. The right to rule (caliphate) shall belong to the Quresh even if two men existed. (Sahih Tirmze. Vol: 9)

The truth of these hadiths is revealed by two events:

1. In the eight hundred year long Islamic history of Spain, even one suzerain was not non-Quresh. It was simply because only the kinsmen of the Prophet i.e. The Quresh, were considered as the legitimate rulers of Islam.

2. There is a clearly stated episode in volume 8 of the Sahih Alburkhri, which historically establishes the Quresh right to rule and excludes everybody else from this honour. Even the most virtuous and capable non- Arab Muslims cannot legitimately rule. It exposes the racial nature of Islam and sounds the death-knell of the much-vaunted Islamic principles of equality and democracy. Again, it is amazing how Muslims of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and African origin deny nationality of their own, and claim to be Muslims only. This is the result of the psychological dominance of the Arab culture through Islam. It is for this reason that they have no national histories of their own. As a result, they cling to the Arab history, which they call the “Islamic history” for having some kind of identity, no matter how inferior.

The event* to which I have referred to, has been narrated by Omar the great, and has been universally accepted as true:
At the death of the Prophet, the problem ot succession became very acute. The Ansar of Medina, who had given the Prophet refuge, but were not Quresh, claimed that they were as good Arabs as any other tribe. They insisted that there

*Sahih Albokh, Vol: 8 Ch. 17. Hadieth 817

should be two rulers one from them (the Ansar) and one from the Quresh. Abu Bakr was quite blunt in stating the doctrine of government as laid down by the Prophet. He said, “O Ansar! you have all the great qualities that you have attributed to yourself but the government belongs only to the Quresh because they are the best of all the Arabs as regards descent and family.”

When things got heated up, Omar thought of a stratagem. He said, “O Abu Bakr, hold out your hand.” As he did so, Omar pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr hurriedly, and the other emigrants (the Arabs who had left Mecca along with the Prophet to reside in Medina) followed suit rapidly. As the Ansar noticed it, being devout Muslims, they could not withhold their allegiance for fear of division in Islam, and surrendered to the Quresh hegemony accepting Abu Bakr as their first Caliph.

Here, one can see that the Prophet’s tribe reserves the right to rule. It certainly proves that the Prophet was first a Quresh and then an Arab. Thus the kind of nationalism he represented was narrower than that of the Jews who are known to have non-Jewish rulers by consent. The “pagans” of Byzantium or the Eastern Romans were far more international in their outlook; anybody from the colonies, irrespective of his colour and creed could become their emperor, who formed the fountain of all political power.

Of course, there are many components of nationalism but race and homeland are the two major factors. Having described the racial factor, now I may narrate the Prophet’s views about Arabia, his homeland. The Prophet’s sayings about Arabia, and especially Mecca, his birthplace, explain this truth:

1. “He who aggresses against Arabia, shall not win my love, nor will I intercede for him.” ( Jame Tirmze Vol . 2 )
2. The Prophet told Suleiman Farsi (the Persian), a freed slave, who gained distinction by fighting for Islam: “….If you bear grudge against Arabia, you bear grudge against me.” (Jame Tirmze Vol. 2)

3 . The Prophet said about Mecca, his birthplace: O Mecca, by Allah you are better than any part of the earth, and dearer to me than the rest of the world.” ( Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

4. “Mecca is the best place and dearer than any other place. Had my nation not driven me out, I would not have lived elsewhere.” (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

Far more significant than these hadiths (the Prophet’s sayings) are the deeds of the Prophet which sought to exalt Mecca, and along with it the entire Arabia, over the rest of the world. He knew that Jerusalem had become the most revered place for the Jews and the Christians owing to the religious esteem attached to it by the Jewish innovations. Whether it was a European or an Eastern Christian, he preferred Jerusalem to his own homeland and paid it an especial tribute of respect. A similar reverential status attached to Mecca must make it a holy city and enhance the prestige of entire Arabia. It was David’s ingenuity which made Jerusalem the Home of Yahwe (the Jewish God) and when Solomon built a temple there, it became the holiest place to the Jews, and the birth of Jesus extended its boundaries of reverence far and wide.
Despite their internal jealousies, the Jews have always been a highly organised group owing to their sense of national superiority and commercial leanings by dint of their faith in the virtues of wealth. Thus wherever they have lived, they have enjoyed social distinction. Their position in the Arabian peninsula was no different. Since both the Jews and the Arabs have a common ancestor called Abraham, they have a good deal in common even without going back to their earlier Semitic origin. During the early period of his prophetic ministry, the Prophet did everything to woo them to his faith; he appointed Jerusalem as the Kibla, which the Muslims should face to say their prayers. It was, indeed, a great honour to the Jews. Then the Koran repeatedly said that Allah had exalted the Jews over all races. However, all these conciliatory steps had the opposite effect on the Jews, who made the mistake of joining the Quresh in opposing the Prophet. When he became victorious, he treated the Jews with contempt but forgave the Quresh, his kith and kin.

There is plenty of evidence which shows that the Prophet wanted to raise an Arab nation in contradistinction to the Jews, the Byzantinians, the Iranians and the Turks. His message has all the appearance of universality but in reality, it is nationalistic. I did not realise this fact when I was writing about the nature of the Islamic mission in my book: Eternity.

Here is the evidence to show that the Prophet wanted to raise an imperial Arab nation:

1. The Prophet said that the first contingent of my followers that would invade the Caesar’s city (Constantinople) would be forgiven their sins ….they would be granted paradise. (Al Bokhari Volume IV)
By “followers” is meant the Arabs because at that time, the only followers that the Prophet had, were the Arabs.

2. The Prophet said that the hour would be established only when the Arabs fought the Turks, the people with small eyes, red faces, flat noses …. and who wore shoes made of hair. (Al Bokhari Vol: IV)

3. The Prophet said that Khusru, the Persian Emperor would be destroyed and his line would be extirpated: Caesar would also be ruined and there would be no Caesar to follow him, and “you,” the Arabs, would spend their treasures in the cause of Allah.

He emphasised: “War is a deceit.” (Al Bokhari Vol: IV)

4. The Prophet wanted his followers even to look culturally different from the Jews and the Christians:

The Prophet said: “the Jews and the Christians do not dye their (grey) hair so you should do the opposite what they do.” (Sahih Albokhari Vol: 7)

The dying of heads and beards among the Muslims is a compliance to this prophetic command.

5. The Prophet did not want the Arabs to follow non- Arabs in their fashions and garments:

When the Prophet saw Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As wearing clothes dyed in Saffron, he forbade him to wear them on the ground that such clothes were worn by the non-believers. (Sahih Muslim Vol: 3)

One should note here the influence of the Indian culture. The yellow or saffron colour has been a distinction of the Hindu and Buddhist saints. Buddhism is known to have penetrated Iran and Arabia.

6. However, the Prophet’s national tendencies are more fully visible in the treatment of the Jews:

a. To neutralise the influence of Hebrew which was the language of the Jewish Scripture, the Koran stated that the Muslims should neither believe nor disbelieve the people of the Book i.e. Jews and Christians but must believe in the Quran only (which was in Arabic). (3: 84)

b. “By the Clear Book,
behold, we have made it an Arabic Koran
haply you will understard;” (Ornaments: 1)

This verse means two things:

1. The Koran is for the Arabs; it is revealed in the Arabic language so that they should understand it. Since it is rot in any other language, it matters not whether the non-Arabs comprehend it or not.

2. As the Koran is in Arabic, this must be the preferred language of the Arabs.

It was customary for the Jews to read the Old Testament in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic. By raising Arabic to the Scriptural status, the Prophet wanted the Arabs to attach no importance to Hebrew and treat Arabic as their national language.

c. As the Jews failed to respond to the Prophet, he adopted a really tough attitude towards them:
He changed the direction of Kibla from Jerusalem to Kaaba, a small shrine located near the centre of the Great Mosque in Mecca, Muhammad’s birthplace. Allah, obviously, af fected this change to please Muhammad, as is quite clear from the following verse:

“We have seen you turning your face about towards the heavens; now we will surely turn you. Turn your face towards the Holy Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it.” ( The Cow: 135 )

The real purpose of this change was to found the Arab nationalism on a doctrine of self-reverence in such a way that the Arabs should believe in themselves as chosen by God-to be the exalted, the preferred and the best, and all non-Arab Muslims must yield to the basic superiority of Arab nationalism as the Divine command. The reader can see this truth for himself by realising that Muslims all over the world face Mecca (Kaaba) five times a day to bow and prostrate in prayers; they bury their dead facing Mecca; every Muslim is obliged by God’s command to visit the Holy shrine at least once in his life time provided that he has the means to do so. All national shrines of the muslim nations are inferior to the holiness of Kaaba.
No place on earth has ever exacted such a tribute of reverence from mankind as the Kaaba. Respect to the Kaaba means, respect to Mecca, respect to Mecca means respect to Arabia, and respect to Arabia, means respect to Arabs, the dwellers of Arabia.

The Moslems say that the Prophet had appointed Bait Ul Maqaddas (Jerusalem) as Kibla because at that time Kaaba, like a temple, was full of idols, which Allah hates. This explanation is contradicted by history: the change of Kibla took place in 624 A.D. when the Kaaba was still the Holy Shrine of the Quresh where they worshipped their idols, including that of Allah, and it was not until 630 when the Prophet entered Mecca as a victor and removed statues from the Kaaba.

According to the Koran, Allah hates idolatory, the only unpardonable sin, yet Allah the All-powerful, allowed idol- worship in Kaaba and could do nothing to evict them for nearly a thousand years, and He had to wait until the advent of Muhammad to be rid of this extreme abomiration. It is obvious that Allah is not a reality but a mental medium to strengthen the cause of Arabia. It is not surprising that Allah speaks Arabic and sends the Koran in Arabic to the Arabic- speaking people.

d. The Arabs have always known that Abraham was the comnnon ancestor of themselves and the Jews but the Bible has portrayed them as superior to the Arabs because according to the Bible, they are from the seed of Isaac, who was borne by Sarah, Abraham’s lawful wife, whereas Ishmael, though fathered by Abraham, was borne by Hagar, the Egyptian maid-servant of Sara, Abraham’s wife.

According to the Bible, as previously mentioned, God’s covenant is with Isaac and not Ishmael, but the Prophet reversed the situation because the Koran claims that:

1. It was Abraham, who along with Ishmael, raised up the foundations of the Kaaba, the House of the Lord;
2. This is where Abraham and Ishmael prayed to the Lord that He should make from their seed a nation which should be submissive to Him (the Lord), and

3. The Lord should send among them a Messenger ( Muhammad ) to recite his signs, teach them the Book ( Koran ) . .. . (The Cow: 120).

Here is a clear attempt to transfer the splendour of Divine distinction from the Jews to the Arabs. If this is not nationalism, then what is it?
Honesty demands that I narrate the whole truth; there is no historical evidence that Abraham ever visited Mecca. According to the Biblical records and archaeological evidence, Abraham was a native of Ur Kasdim, a Sumerian city, the modern Tall al Muqayyar (or Mughair) about two hundred miles south east of Baghdad in Lower Mesopotamia. After migration from Ur, Abraham first stopped at Harran, then at Bethel, a holy city, where prevailed the cult of El, the Canaanite god. This is where according to Genesis, Abraham built an altar and also took over the Canaanite sanctuary which he consecrated to Yahwe. When he moved to Mamre in Hebron, he received the revelation about the perpetuation of his race. This was the end of his journey. Thus his journey terminated on the Canaanite soil, and not at Mecca.

Again, the scholars have claimed that Abraham was not a monotheist, the believer of one God; he practised monolatry, that is, worship of one among many gods. It has been remarked that he swore by “the Lord God Most High” i.e., both Yahwe and El Elyon. It is this El who was to be known as Allah in Mecca and whose statue was worshipped in Kaaba for centuries.

Here one can see the struggle for national supremacy between the two Semitic wings; it has been going on for many centuries and is getting worse instead of showing any signs of abatement.

To raise the prestige of Arabia, the Prophet showered some stunning sanctity on Mecca, his birth place:

1. For example, the Koran says: “O Prophet! say to them I have been commanded to worship only the Lord of this town, Mecca.” (2′: 91)
It is an attempt to establish the special relationship of Allah with Mecca. He is, first of all the Lord of Mecca, and then of the rest of the world. It is Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad where Allah lives.

2. Abraham in 14: 35-37 is shown asking Allah to make Mecca a place of peace and security. He calls Kaaba, God’s Sacred House.

3. In 5: 97, Allah declares Kaaba as the Sacred House, an asylum of security and pilgrimage for mankind.

The Koran goes even further and declares that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was a Muslim (House of Imran: 60). Yet in another verse, Koran states that Islam is the creed of Abraham who “Named you Muslim.” (The Pilgrim: 75)

For making Arabia the focus of reverence to all believers, the Koran ( House of Imran: 90 ) has made it obligatory to visit Mecca at least once in one’s life-time if the believer has the means to do so. It is called Hajj and is one of the fundamental principles of the Islamic faith and carries the key to paradise. Those who contravene it, are not true Muslims in the eyes of Allah, who may refuse them the bounties reserved for a genuine believer.
Mecca at that time was just a large village, yet the “Arabic Koran” declared it the Mother of the Cities to raise its status above all the cities of the world. ( Counci l: 5 )

No national leader has ever devised such a patriotic scheme. Its beneficence to Arabia can be judged by a single factor: in modern times Mecca attracts at least two million pilgrims from all over the world every year. Assuming each pilgrim spends three thousand pounds sterling, Arabia draws an income of £6,000,000,000 per annum. The population of Saudi Arabia is said to be 6,000,000. It works out an annual income of £1 ,000 per person including women and children or £5,000 per family which is still greater for a comparable family on Social Security in Great Britain and many other European countries. Since the Hajj – income counted as the mainstay of the Arabs before they discovered their oil wealth, one can guage the patriotic magnitude of the Prophet. With it goes, the international reverence and the belief in the holiness of Arabia. Fancy several hundred million people throughout the world bowing and bending towards Mecca praying and begging for Heavenly mercy. And this happens not once a year or a month but five times a day!

In it lies the national magnitude of Muhammad, his vision, his wisdom and greatness of character. What a patriot the Prophet was! There is none who can be compared with him in patriotism.

The Prophet declared his nation and country as sacred by the force of revelation; he knew that his people could not rule the world until they were welded into an effective fighting force. So he formulated the doctrine of Jehad i.e. fighting against the unbelievers for taking over their country, personal possessions and women, and subjugating them to the Arabian hegemony.

This is how the doctrine of Jehad worked:

1. He told the Jews: “If you become Muslims, you will be protected, otherwise, you should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and I want to expel you from this land.” (Sahih Albukhari Vol:4)
2. Since the ambition to possess the entire earth or the best part of it required military enlerprise, the Prophet declared:
“The paradise lies under the shades of the swords.” (Sahih Albukhari Vol: 4)

3. To give his followers the status of divine warriors, the Koran declares:
“God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill and are killed; that is a promise binding on God..” ( Repentance: 1 10 )

Paradise is the place of plentitude replete with beautiful women and boys. If a Muslim soldier wins, his life becomes a paradise on this earth because of the booty he receives by way of wealth and women. If he is killed in the battle, he goes straight to the paradise. Therefore, he cannot be the loser. What a philosophical temptation to murder, pillage and imperialism it is!

4. Since Jehad is against the unbelievers, the Prophet created unlimited opportunities for holy wars by declaring all other religions false and ungodly:
“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted….. (The House of Imran :85)

5. The Prophet abrogated all other religions because he called himself to be the apostle of all humanity. “Any Jew or Christian who heard of me but did not believe in me, would go to hell.” (Sahih Muslim Ch. LXX1)

6. The Prophet declared that he was commanded to fight against people ceaselessly until they confessed that there was no god but Allah and Muhammad was His Messenger (prophet). The lives and riches of the people could be guaranteed protection on his behalf on the fulfilment of this condition only. (Sahih Muslim Ch. IX)

In fact, these holy wars were the wars of national ambition and contained all those elements of savagery as did the wars of the infidels. The Prophet himself declared: “war is a deceit,” which it is. Therefore, its consequences could not be congenial to the Prophet’s claim of “being mercy to all beings.” Al Bukhari Vol. 8 has recorded some examples to this effect. Let me quote three:

1. The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men who belonged to the tribe of Uraina and let them die bleeding.
2. When men from Ukl committed crimes, the Prophet had them arrested. Their hands and legs were cut off, their eyes were branded with red-hot irons and they were thrown at Al-Harra. When they begged for drinking water, it was refused and they died thirsty.

3. Those who fought against him, he amputated their limbs and they died of bleeding.

The prophetic attitude is justified on the authority of the Koran:
The only reward of those who fight against Allah and the Messenger is execution or crucifixion or the cutting of hands and feet from opposite sides, or banishment from the land. (The Table: 33)

Thus, one can see that Islam is not a message of mercy but a secular code like all other contemporary codes. To perpetuate opportunities for war to keep the Mujahedeen (warriors of Allah) on war footing, Islam is based on the hatred of non-Muslims. Consider the following:

1. Do not pray for your dead mother, father, relatives or friends, nor go near their graves, if they were unbelievers. (Repentance: 189)
2. The believers must not take unbelievers for friends. (The Woman tested: 10)

3. Muslims must wage a struggle against the non- Muslims and be harsh with them. ( The Forbidding: 5 )

4. Slay the idolators wherever you find them. ( Repentance: S )

5. Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them; take not to yourself any one of them as friend or helper. ( Women 90 )

6. God urges the Prophet to be tough with the unbelievers and assures him that they will not be able to resist him much longer. ( The Confederates: 60 )

7. God has cursed the unbelievers and prepared a blaze for them. ( The Confederates: 65 )

It is quite obvious that as Karl Marx, centuries later, dreamt of creating a world order based on social abraison in which victory of the proletariats was assured, the Prophet wanted to found a world order on Divine friction which sought to assure ascendancy to his foliowers led by the Arabs.
Of course, there are certain verses in the Quran which suggest internationalism but their meaning is misunderstood. The faithful do not seem to realise that during the life-time of Muhammad, Islam was confined to Arabia. Therefore, whenever, the Koran addresses the audience as “people” “believers” or “faithful,” it addresses the Arabs who formed the audience. The fact that the Koran which emphatically calls itself as the Arabic Koran so that the Arabs must appreciate the nature of the message, clearly states the national spirit of Islam.

Nationhood is a natural social unit which also serves as a measure of morality. From the union of a man and woman emerge children who multiply into grandchildren, great- grandchildren, clans, tribes and nations, who come to occupy a certain land. Thus they have not only a blood-tie but also a common language and share customs and traditions common to their ancestors. Again, their land or country plays a major role in their destiny not only as their birthplace but also because their honour depends upon its freedom from the foreign predators. This racial unity of the people associated with the motherland (fatherland) gives birth to a common interest which is shared in varying degrees by all its people, and serves as the uniting force. Of course, religion or social dogma such as socialism also plays a role in the history of a nation but this is of secondary nature. Religion supplies a blind force which is weakened as the people become more intelligent and rational. Again the national interest always rides the religious interest unless a country is run by a group of traitors or religious fanatics. Even the Arabs are divided into many nations each looking after its own interest. The recent Gulf war has spelt this truth out quite clearly.

In fact the concept of national honour and the ambition to be a great nation form the pillar of morality. The greater nations have greater customs and traditions and higher standards of morality but the nations such as people of the Indian subcontinent who do not believe in nationalism practise convenient moralily which is the bane of their social and political integrity. The creation of Pakistan shows that nationhood is a reality and not a sentimental mumbo- jumbo. This country was created in 1947 on a religious basis but in 1979 the eastern half ended the union on racial grounds after a lot of bloodshed. The remaining four provinces are constantly bickering for similar reason. As there is no national sense of honour the moral integrity of its people is about to collapse any time.

However, Fascism and Natzism are the perverted forms of nationalism. They represent an acute condition of mental illness because a nation is an integral part of the human race and is thus accountable to the wider interests of mankind. No nation is intrinsically superior to other nations because they all have the same origin. A nation’s superiority is to be judged not by its political or economic dominance but by its services to humanity. Thus every powerful nation has a duty of care to the weaker nations.

A truly civilised nation abhors racism which is an expression of man’s lower instincts. This is the reason that the cultural decency is a part of nationalism. It means that a civilised nation opens its doors to the needy members of foreign nations to become its part on humanitarian grounds and treats them as if they were racially one of them. Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany and France are some examples of adoptive nationalism. It shows the human link of nations which overrides other conditions but it cannot be practised on a “free for all” basis owing to the local considerations.

The Prophet’s nationalism was imbued by the religious overtones. A Moslem had some privileges like the Arabs but he was still an Arab subject because the government belonged to the Arabs, especially the Quresh.

The Prophet made the sanctity of his own person as the cornerstone of the Islamic edifice. For example, without believing in him, the belief in God is absolutely useless. The projection of himself as the Behavioural Model ( USWA-e- HASNA) for the believers, no matter where they may be, has served as the fountain of Arab national superiority for centuries.

It should be clearly understood that the prophet was an Arab who had inherited the Arab culture. Therefore, he lived like the fellow Arabs. In the beginning, religion was the only difference between him and the fellow Arabs. Once they had accepted his faith, there were no other cultural differences to be resolved. They all spoke Arabic, wore similar clothes, ate the same food, followed similar customs and traditions, experienced similar winters and summers, shared the same national anniversaries, history and temperament.

Since nobody can enter paradise without the Prophet’s consent, and the Prophet will intercede for his followers only, it is thought absolutely necessary by the believers to follow the Prophet as the Behavioural Model in every detail with utmost sincerity. The faith has come to mean, not only to pray, fast and perform Hajj, the way the Prophet used to do, but also look like him, that is, to cut hair like him, wear clothes like him, walk like him, talk like him, sleep like him, eat like him, adopt his manners and customs. Above all, love and hate what he loved and hated. This tendency has had a devastating effect on the national character of foreign nations which came to accept Islam, possibly with the exception of the Turks. As the Prophet loved Arabia and its cultural traditions, the foreign Muslim nations started loving Arabia and its traditions at the expense of their own countries and cultures. It should be noted that the Prophet hated infidels. As the ancestors of these foreign nations were invariably unbelievers, they started hating their own forefathers to love the Arab heroes. The Prophet’s assertion that the Muslims are one nation, and infidels are another, accelerated the process of the foreign Muslims’ unity with the Arabs, but as the Behavioural Model was Arabian, the relationship between the Arabs and the foreign Muslims became that of a leader and the led or the master and the slave. This influence which was originally of individual nature, eventually penetrated the foreign institutions. For example, most of the Muslim shrines are in Arabia i.e. in Mecca and Medina, but all other shrines in the foreign lands are subordinated to the Arabian shrines. This cultural following of the foreigners has assumed slavish mentality because whatever they think or do must conform to the patterns of thinking and doing set by the Arabian soil and culture. As a result, the foreign Muslims have little or no loyalty to their own motherlands for being devoid of national honour. This is nothing but the miracle of the Prophet who imposed the everlasting hegemony of his own people on Muslims of foreign nations. I salute him and applaud his ingenuity because he has created similar relationship between Arabia and the foreign Muslim countries as it exists between a burning lamp and moths; these insects are impatient to cremate themselves on its flame without any coercion on the part of the lamp! This divine imperialism has no parallel in history. About two dozen countires which the Arabs conquered, are still in their possession as “Arab countries.” One wonders what happened to the original papulations. They are obviously ashamed of their real identities and want to be known as Arabs.

This concept of one Muslim nationhood or the Arabian over- lordship equally applies to the nations which were once the pillars of civilisation. What happened to the Egyptians, the great followers of the exalted pharaohs, whose splendour covered 3000 years of history? They all have become Arabs. What happened to the mighty Iranians who had not only a glorious history of 1200 years but produced their own prophets of gigantic stature? The grandeur of the Iranians was so great that the traditions of their imperial court were closely imitated by Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors and the European monarchs. They influenced the Raman law, checked the foreign advance in Asia and humiliated the Romans again and again. Their prophets such as Zaratushtra and Mani influenced religion and world thinking. But since they have become spiritual satellites or Arabia, their national stars have been on the wane. India is yet another example of this saga. This land has exerted more influence on the world civilisation than any other country in the world. Its inventiveness through steel, cotton and water technology made a tremendous contribution to the international culture, and its philosophical and religious movements have orientated the human mind in the East and the West. But now she is at the lower rung of the Third World. The Hindus, though did not lack the nerve to defend their country, never respected the idea of nationhood owing to the Caste System. Before the entry of Islam, India was not only a free country but also the richest and technically the most advanced in the world. It was her misfortune that neither it became an Arabian land like Egypt, owing to its strong local influences nor could it retain its quasi national character like the Iranian for lacking the proud imperial traditions. As a result, the Muslims of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, whose numbers touch the 400 million mark, totally lack the concept of nationhood. They are refugees in their own countries for having no real love and respect for their motherlands. Since national consciousness has the same relationship with a people as backbone has with the body, it is natural for these people to keep drifting until they realise that their homelands are, where they were born, and not in Arabia. This situation has been worsened by the fact that these “nations” are poor and victims of social tyranny, which pays lip service to justice and human rights, while doing exactly the opposite. It is usual that a person who lacks pleasure, habitually dreams more af it. Therefore, the Moslems of these lands miss delights of paradise violently and look forward to the fulfilment of their frustrated ambitions in the next world. As it is the Prophet who holds the key to paradise, these people have become even more fanatic followers of the Prophet, and are prepared to do anything in the name of Muhammad to qualify for admission into paradise. It is the national struggle for survival, honour and supremacy which makes a people great. By destroying the national spirit of the non-Arab Muslims, Islam has demolished the Asian centres of civilisation such as Egypt, Iran and India. This fact is amply vouched for by the economic and political splendour of the Far Eastern countries which have not been gripped by the Islamic concepts, and are guided by the law of reason, and national considerations. Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, etc., are fairly free fram hunger, disease and tyranny. These nations are living in a paradise on this earth whereas the believers are dreaming of an imaginary heaven, and through sheer frustration, are becoming more and more fanatic. This is the reason for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and not that they want to practise Islam, which is impracticable in the modern world. They are crying for an Islamic government under the force of propaganda without knowing anything about its nature. Therefore I may briefly touch upon this subject to show that revelation is neither for ever nor is it capable of solving human problems, which people have to tackle themselves. The Muslims claim that Islam is a complete code of life. It is nothing of the sort. This is the reason that no Islamic government has ever been introduced in the long history of Islam. It is just a political slogan of those who want to fool people to satisfy their own ends by exploiting people’s religious susceptibilities. Some fifty years ago, India was partitioned to create Pakistan for the introduction of an Islamic government. After half a century of cogitation, nobody knows what Islamic government is, nor is there any likelihood of its enforcement during the next century and thereafter. It was just a cry of the power-hungry men who exploited the word: “Islam” to gain power and wealth. If these leaders were honest in their assertions, they should have given the exact details of the Islamic government to the people before embarking on their mission.

Since Muslims are becoming more fundamentalistic every day, I may examine the major precepts of Islam to expose their irrelevance in the modern world:

1. The first Islamic assertion is that government belongs to God. No, government belongs to the people. What makes man a man is his free will i.e., the freedom to choose and refuse. He can do so only if the government belongs to man.
2. Muslems claim that:

a. Islam offers a particular system of government, b. and this system is democracy.

Neither of these assertions holds good: Firstly, when the Prophet died, succession became a very acute problem, indeed. He left no instructions how to appoint his successor though the Shiites claim that the Prophet had nominated Ali to take over the government. An indecision about such a vital point shows that there is no such thing as Islamic system of government.
Labelling a few laws as Islamic government, especially when most of them were borrowed from Iran, do not create the structure for an independent government.

Secondly, Islamic government is not democratic. As stated earlier, ils head has to be a Qureshi. At the most, it can be quasi oligarchic.

Its first four rulers were appointed differently: Abu Bakr was chosen through a stratagem. Omar was appointed by Abu Bakr. Having failed to persuade Abd-Ur-Rahman to accept nomination, Omar appointed a committee of six men to choose his successor. They chose Uthman. Selection by six men is surely not democracy. When Uthmam was assassinated, Ali was raised to the status of the Caliph by his own clan, the Hashamite. I need not mention the Battle of Karbla and the heroic deeds of Hussain. The fact is, thereafter the Islamic Caliphate became a dynastic rule or kingship.

Thirdly, the Khilafat-e-Rashida i.e. the rule of the first four Caliphs is considered as the Golden Period of Islam as well as the model Islamic government, and thus emphasis is laid on following its example. Unfortunately, the believers do not know the whole truth about this period. To start with, 90% of all Arabs after the Prophet’s death refused to pay Zakat and thus turned renegades (Murtad). They actually marched on Medina. It was the courage and timely action of Abu Bakr which repulsed them. Had they succeeded, it would have sounded the death knell of Islam. Only Abu Bakr died naturally after a rule of eighteen months whereas Omar, Uthman and Ali were assassinated.

How golden was this period, can be further assessed by the fact that the Arabs made a profession of robbing and murdering the non-Moslems in the name of Allah, but they called it Jehad. Egypt and Iran were the early casualties. It was the pillaged wealth and the abducted daughters and sisters of the foreign nations which lent the golden touch to this Arab era.

3. They claim that Islam is a Socialistic system. It is totally untrue. Of course, Islam is an advocate of charity and advises the faithful to give away what is over and above his needs, but this is completely a moral precept, and has nothing to do with the Islamic law, which is essentially feudalistic. Islam openly declares that God makes king whom he likes, and gives wealth to a person without reckoning: wealth includes all types of possessions, i.e., money, land, buildings, etc. It means that both democracy and Socialism are un-lslamic.
4. Islam has no economic doctrine. For example, it forbids receiving and giving interest whereas interest is an essential economic factor, and it is impossible to run an economy without it. All those Muslim leaders, both political and religious, who raise slogans for the abolition of Riba (interest) receive interest from banks, building societies, insurance companies and national bonds. Even the Islamic governments lend their petro-dollars on maximum interest. The advantages of interest as long as it is not extortionate, far outweigh its disadvantages.

5. Islamic laws are bound to be impracticable because they were devised or adapted 1400 years ago. Take purdah or hijab, for instance. It is a stern Koranic command, yet it has been ignored nearly by all the Muslim countries. This is equally true with regard to polygamy and the laws of inheritance, divorce, Khula, etc. To hide these deficiencies, the zealots have made misinterpretation as their greatest hobby. No matter how un-Islamic a practice, they quite artificially put the stamp of the Koran or the Hadith on it.

6. Islamic hatred for non-Muslims makes Islam the opponent of human rights. This is the reason that one cannot find many non-Muslims in the Muslim countries. The Prophet ordered his followers to expel all pagans from Arabia and he himself banished the Jews. In fact, a hadith says: a Muslim in anger can slap a Jew without fear of compensation. Similarly, a Muslim cannot be executed for murdering a non-Muslim. Further, the aggressive nature of an Islamic regime can be judged by the fact that the Muslims have their mosques in Benares (India), the spiritual centre of Hinduism, but nobody can build a temple, church or synagogue in Mecca. Again, as association of a Muslim with a non-Muslim is forbidden by the Koran, membership of the United Nations by all Muslim nations is un-lslamic. What a model of international brotherhood it is!

Posted in Arabs, Islam, Islamofascism, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article | 1 Comment »

Muhammad: The Successful Hitler

Posted by jagoindia on April 26, 2010


Hitler killed too many people too fast, and so was defeated and destroyed in 12 years. Like the Nazis, Muhammad and his successors embarked on a program of dehumanization and genocide, but they pursued it gradually and intermittently instead of all at once, and so the movement they created is still going strong after 1400 years.

The whole religion is the projection of the personality of that one man, of his will to power, his sense that he was God’s Prophet, and that everyone must yield to him or die. That man created a nation of one billion clones of himself. That’s what we’re facing. That’s why I say that the key to understanding Muhammad is that he was a successful Hitler.

Posted in Hitler, Islam, Islamofascism, Muhammad, Must read article, Nazism/Hitler, Terrorism | 1 Comment »

Why Is Islam Violent?

Posted by jagoindia on February 16, 2010

Islam and Violence

Excerpted  from Link

Muslims who commit acts of violence and terror in the name of God, can find ample justification for their actions, based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the sayings and examples from prophet Muhammad himself!

Muslims who take upon themselves to destroy their alleged enemies in the name of God, can rightly claim to be following the commands of God in the Qur’an and imitating their prophet as their role model.

Groups in Islam who resort to violence, are not an aberration to Islam, but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad. We will now turn to the evidence in support of our claim.

The following are only some of the verses in the Qur’an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.

2:190-193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God …”

2:216 “Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not.”

2:224 “Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things.”

3:157-158 “And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together.”

3:169 “Think not of those who are slain in God’s way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”

3:195 “… Those who have … fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God …”

4:101 “… For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”

4:74, 75 “Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.”

4:89 “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…”

4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

5:36 “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

5:54 “O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.”

8:12-17 “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment … O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war … he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed).”

8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know …”

8:65 “O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers, for these are a people without understanding.”

9:5 “… fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …”

9:14 “Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame …”

9:29 “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

47:4 “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) … but if it had been God’s will, he could certainly have exacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of God, he will never let their deeds be lost.”

61:4 “Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”

A simple reading of such Qur’anic passages makes it obvious how easy it is for many Muslims to feel hatred and enmity against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Although, many Muslims are very fond of quoting some of the more “open-minded” and “inclusive” verses of the Qur’an, one cannot ignore the weight and impact of the above passages on a devout Muslim who wants to find and obey the will of God as found in the Qur’an. Before, we go on to other examples from prophet Muhammad himself, we need to respond to two issues that some Muslims bring up at this point.

Many have claimed that Qur’anic verses in support of fighting, were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad, was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur’an itself the above commands to fight are restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. Unlike the divine commands found in the book of Joshua in the OT, that were specific to a time, place and people group, Orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur’anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.

A second objection that one hears is that Islam is a religion of peace and war in Islam is only for self-defense. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslim apologist, claims, “Actual armed jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression.” (cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 238).

Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed jihad in Islam, what he fails to say is that the definitions of “self-defense” and “fighting against oppression” are much broader than usually understood. Many Orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation’s leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are “oppressors” and thus a legitimate target for war (see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35).

Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense (see the article by Mark Galli, “Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism,” Christianity Today, Oct 22, 2001). Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define “self-defense” and “oppression” and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

Rest Link

Posted in Islam, Islamofascism, Muhammad, Muslims, Quran | 3 Comments »

Mohammedan Adam & Eve

Posted by jagoindia on May 10, 2009

Click here

Posted in Humor, Muhammad | Leave a Comment »

10 Eternal truths about Islam — Must read

Posted by jagoindia on March 3, 2009

To read the article click here

Professor K.S. Lal has studied and taught the history of Islam in India for the last more than fifty years. His characterization of Islam as an ideology is being presented below:

1 Islam is understood more correctly when it is called Muhammadanism. Muhammad is the central figure in Islam. He controls the hearts and minds of all Muslims everywhere

2. Fundamentalism is not accidental but essential to Islam It sees unchangeability as strength. That is why the word reform is so abhorrent to Muslim thinkers and religious leaders …

3. In Islam truth is established by the sword… dissent is hated as heresy and stamped out as infidelity … early medieval Indian Muslim chronicles mention the sword as the greatest harvester of converts. Islam was made to spread, as the old saying goes, with Quran in one hand and sword in the other. Sword was freely used in forcing people to become Musalmans

4. There is a uniqueness about Islam. Non-Muslims are to be converted to Islam freely. But once a Kafir becomes a Musalman, he has to remain one for ever thereafter. He is not permitted to renounce Islam or revert to his original faith. Punishment for such apostasy is death…”73

5. Islam lacks any doctrine of coexistence... Muslim madrasas cannot shed their Kafir complex… The present adjustment of coexistence is a temporary expediency in India…74 It is the teaching of Islam to shun contact with non-Muslims except with a view to converting them… Muslim separatism expresses itself in many ways…”75

6. In Islam all human beings are not treated as equals. It makes a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. A non-Muslim is a Kafir, an inferior being. Non-Muslims do not enjoy any human right in this world; they cannot enter Paradise after death.  Islam has two sets of principles of morality, ethics and justice: one is for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. Sincerity, well-wishing and brotherhood are for the believers and faithful Islamic scriptures recommend setting Muslims against non-Muslims, believers against infidels to defend Islam and destroy unbelief. Individual and group killings of Kafirs is encouraged…”78

7. Islam recommends Jihad or permanent war on adherents of other religions This makes Islam a totalitarian and terrorist cult which it has remained ever since its birth.79… There have been wars but wars fought by Muslims are in the service of Allah. This gives Islamic belligerency divine sanction and terrorism becomes a divine command…”80

8. Like proselytization, desecrating and demolishing the temples of non-Muslims is also central to Islam. Iconoclasm derives its justification from the Quranic revelations and the Prophet’s Sunnah or practice …81 non-Muslims cannot reclaim their desecrated temples. This is the law of Islam…”82

9.Islam has all the ingredients of imperialism found anywhere in the world in any age… 83 By destroying the national spirit of non-Arab Muslims, Islam has demolished the Asian centres of civilization such as Egypt, Iran and India…”84

10. The Islamic principles of denigrating the non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against them – principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine – have boomeranged. However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam today are by and large Muslims themselves. The Prophet must have known that violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another after his death. He also had a premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that once the Rasul opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina would one day return to Medina in poverty. Just as a snake crawls back and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina. The increasing power of the non-Muslim West and the disenchantment of Muslim dissidents point towards that possibility, howsoever remote.

Prof Lal has presented many other facets of Islam such as that Islam has no word for democracy; that secularism and Islam are mutually exclusive; that Islam can set up only a theocratic state; that Islam has institutionalised slavery and degraded women; and that Islam has laid waste many countries.

Entire Quran is a Manual on Jihad

Posted in Discrimination, India, Iran, Islam, Islamization, Islamofascism, Jihad, kafirs, Mohammed, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

50 things Mohammed did that Muslims DONT Want You To Know

Posted by jagoindia on January 8, 2009

What did Mohammed do:  Great quiz — 50 Things Muslims DONT Want You To Know

The original link got mysteriously deleted. Here is another source.

Click here

Posted in Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Mohammed, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article, Terrorism | 3 Comments »

Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence: by Tawfik Hamid

Posted by jagoindia on December 31, 2008

The Trouble with Islam

Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world’s decline, entitled “What Went Wrong?” Astonishingly, there was, among many Western “progressives,” a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis’s implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.

These “progressives” frequently cite the need to examine “root causes.” In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological “rootlets” of Islamism, the main tap root has a name–Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals–who unceasingly claim to support human rights–have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western “progressives” pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria–which happened in the last few decades–or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand–but so far haven’t–that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered “moderates.”

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

Posted in Islam, Islamofascism, Maoists/naxalites, Moderate Muslims/Islam, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article, Non-Muslims, Salafi, Sharia, Terrorism, West | Leave a Comment »

Quran says: Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them (2:191)

Posted by jagoindia on December 29, 2008

I have been made victorious through terror — Muhammad, founder of Islam

Quran says:
Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them. (2:191)
Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of Allah (2:193)
The vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8:55)
Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers (3:28)
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them (8:12)
Verily, the unbelievers are najis [unclean]. (9:28)
Ten things are essentially najis in Isalm: 1. Urine 2. Feces 3. Semen 4. Dead body 5. Blood 6. Dog 7. Pig 8. The sweat of an animal who eats najis things 9. Alcoholic beverages 10. Kafir (non-Muslims).

More quotes from Islam promoting hatred and terrorisH here: Muhammad’s Own Word

Here is a mullah repeating the same evil thoughts

Attack on London ‘inevitable’
April 19, 2004

Several Islamic militant groups are preparing attacks on London, making such a strike unavoidable, a radical Muslim cleric said in an interview published today.

“It’s inevitable. Because several (attacks) are being prepared by several groups,” Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told Lisbon’s Publica magazine from London where he is based.

One “very well organised” group in London calling itself al-Qaeda Europe “has a great appeal for young Muslims”, he said. “I know that they are ready to launch a big operation.”

The firebrand cleric, who has outraged moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike with his uncompromising views, gave no further details.

Asked if a British Muslim was allowed to carry out a “terrorist attempt” in a foreign country, Muhammad said, “That is another story.”

He added: “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.”

It was important to see accusations of terrorism in their proper context, he said.

“If we give money to needy women and children, they say they are the families of terrorists. But where do the terrorists come from? Zimbabwe? No. They are people from here. And they are our brothers, the terrorists.”

“The British also are terrorists, in Iraq … Terrorism is the law of the 21st century. It’s legitimate.”

Sheikh Bakri Muhammad said he had mixed feelings about the possible effect of his comments.

“In a certain way I regret that, because the first thing the government will do is deport me, myself and my family,” he said.

The Syrian-born cleric heads the al Muhajiroun group, which has praised the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the al-Qaeda militant network blamed for them.

He told Publica there were several “freelance” militant groups in Europe, such as al-Qaeda London, prepared to launch attacks similar to those carried out by the al-Qaeda network.

Four British men and a teenager appeared in court in Britain last week charged with plotting a bombing after they were arrested in the country’s biggest anti-terror raids since the US attacks on September 11.

The men, all of Pakistani origin, were arrested on March 30 in raids which uncovered 600kg of ammonium nitrate, a fertiliser that can be used in bomb making.

Asked about his comments that he wanted to have the banner of Islam at 10 Downing Street, Muhammad said, “Yes, it’s my dream. I believe one day that is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here.”

“I’ve been arrested 16 times. And 16 times freed, because they have nothing against me. These are the contradictions of laws made by man.

“If they believe in democracy, who are they afraid of? Let Omar Bakri benefit from democracy!”

– Reuters

Posted in Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, kafirs, Muhammad, Must read article, Non-Muslims, Quran, Terrorism | 4 Comments »

Mumbai attacks: The terrorist army of Muhammad is back

Posted by jagoindia on November 28, 2008


The Army of Muhammad is back.

This was the message buzzing in radical Islamist circles yesterday as the world tried to absorb the shock of the terrorist attacks in Bombay, India’s economic capital.

While it is not yet clear which group was behind the attacks, it looks as if the perpetrators were trying to imitate the tactic of ghazwa, used by the Prophet against Meccan caravans in his decade-long campaign to seize control of the city.

The tactic consists of surprise no-holds-barred attacks simultaneously launched against a caravan or settlement with the aim of demoralising the enemy and hastening his capitulation.

The Bombay attacks differed from previous terror operations in India in a number of ways. In the past, one approach had been to place explosive-packed devices in crowded places with the aim of killing large numbers at random. Another was suicide attacks on specific targets by lone “volunteers for martyrdom”.

This time, however, the approach was “symphonic”, in the sense that it involved different types of operations blended together.

Involved in the operations were men who had placed explosives at selected points. But there were also gunmen operating in classic military style by seizing control of territory at symbolically significant locations along with hostages. Then there were militants prepared to kill, and be killed, in grenade attacks against security forces.

Whoever designed the operations had another important Islamic tactic in mind: tabarra or exoneration.

This consists of separating the “outsider”, in this case the British and American “infidel”, from the community with the intent of blaming them for the ills of the world before sacrificing them. It was no accident that one of the places attacked was a Jewish centre, where gunmen seized a rabbi and several members of the congregation as hostages.

The loud message was that a small group of individuals could turn a megalopolis of almost 15 million inhabitants into a battlefield for at least a day.

Terrorism is a beast with an extraordinary ability to mutate. As soon as its victims have learnt to cope with its methods, it develops new ones. Groups of anarchists throwing bombs follow the lone assassin who would target a king or a political leader. The hijacking of passenger jets is replaced by the transformation of aircraft into missiles against fixed targets.

All the time, the intention is to terrorise the largest number of people, eroding the ordinary man’s confidence in the ability of the authorities to protect him, and, in the long run, persuading a majority of the people, who just want to live their lives, to trade their freedom for the security that the terrorist promises in his utopia.

Although new to India, the tactic of “symphonic” attacks has been tried in a number of other countries in the past decade, notably Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, at times with devastating effects.

Most recently, it was tried, on a smaller scale, by the Taliban in the Afghan city of Qala-Mussa. Theoretically, the tactic could be used in any city, from Bombay to New York, passing through London and Paris.

On Wednesday, it was obvious that India’s various anti-terror units were surprised, unable to cope with methods of operations not mentioned in their manuals.

So far the only claim of responsibility has came from a hitherto unknown group using the name the “Deccan Mujahedin”.

This may be a cover for other groups, perhaps the Lashkar Tayyiba (the Army of the Pure) and the Jaish Muhammad (the Army of Muhammad), two terrorist organisations created by the Pakistani military intelligence services.

Earlier this year, in one of his last acts as president, Pervez Musharraf announced the dissolution of both, but it is possible that the two groups and their backers in the Pakistani military and intelligence elite have returned to the market under a new brand, with new tactics.

The attacks came 48 hours after Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, practically threw away 50 years of Pakistani policy by announcing his readiness to end the dispute with India over Kashmir.

Zardari is an ethnic Baluch who, unlike previous Pakistani leaders who had Indian backgrounds, has no direct family history in pre-partition India. As a result, he is not as sensitive on Kashmir as his predecessors.

The Bombay attacks could be a message to Zardari that, though he may be uninterested in Kashmir, the issue is still central to many in Pakistan.

The new label used may also be significant. Deccan, a region in south-central India, was the intellectual and cultural capital of Indian Islam for centuries.

By using the term “Deccan Mujahedin”, the terrorists may be trying to pass two messages. First, that the Islamist movement is no longer interested only in Kashmir but intends to strive for the reconquest of the whole of India for Islam.

This runs in line with the new pan-Islamist thinking that propagates the will to recover all lands once ruled by Muslims – from India to Spain and southern France, passing by Siberia, parts of Russia and the Balkans. “Deccan” designates a movement that has universal aspirations precisely because it claims local roots.

The designation is also intended to show that India now has a home-grown Islamist terror movement.

This started to form more than a decade ago after Hindu nationalists won power in New Delhi through the BJP and its radical anti-Muslim allies. The Islamist terror movement has adopted what is known as the Matryoshka method, after the Russian dolls nested one into another. The outer and bigger doll in this case is the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (Simi), which claims millions of members.

Indian authorities call Simi an antechamber of terrorism. Within it are nested other dolls in the form of cultural associations, charities and political lobby groups. The smallest and deadliest doll represents the kind of groups that may have been behind these attacks.

The need for a home-grown terror movement in India may have been further emphasised by the success of the US-led coalition in destroying virtually all Islamist training bases and safe havens in Afghanistan.

With Pakistan also becoming inhospitable, partly thanks to Zardari’s apparent determination to move his country close to both India and the United States, Indian Islamists are forced to look for training centres and safe havens at home.

While many have mentioned al-Qaeda as the perpetrator of the latest attacks, the connection is not easy to establish.

Many experts believe al-Qaeda has ceased to exist as an organisation, although it survives as a model and inspiration. Al-Qaeda’s number two, the Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been calling on militants to refocus their efforts on winning power in Muslim countries such as India, which is home to 150 million Muslims, and thus the largest “Muslim” country in the world, ahead of Indonesia.

This is in contrast with Osama bin Laden’s theory that the US and its Western allies must be prime targets because, if they fall, the world system they dominate will disintegrate, opening the way for Islam’s final triumph.

It is possible that al-Zawahiri’s writings influenced the Bombay attackers. But it is unlikely that he and al-Qaeda had any direct role in planning or executing them.

There are other reasons why India is targeted. Over the past five years, it has emerged as the largest aid donor to Afghanistan and the second most important backer of President Hamid Karzai’s regime after the US.

The buzz in jihadist circles is that once the US and its allies have left, India will emerge as the principal foreign power behind the new democracy in Afghanistan. India is already playing a leading role in training and equipping the new Afghan army and police.

India has also moved from its traditional anti-Americanism to a new policy of close friendship with the US. Earlier this year, India signed a landmark nuclear co-operation agreement, paving the way for massive purchases of American military hardware in the future.

In jihadist circles, the new Indian economic boom is often described as the “House of the Spider”, a reference to a sura of the same name in the Koran, Islam’s holy book. On Wednesday, the attackers may have wished to show the flimsy nature of the “House of the Spider” by attacking Bombay, the engine of India’s economic transformation.

However, if that was the intention, the terrorists are likely to be disappointed. Bombay and India in general have been victims of terror before, although not in so spectacular a fashion. And yet they have managed to absorb the shock and move ahead.

As always, the terrorists may end up like the man who, having won a great many tokens at the roulette table, is surprised when the casino tells him his winnings cannot be cashed.

Amir Taheri is author of ‘Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism’. His new book, ‘The Persian Night’, will be published next month.

Posted in Afghanistan, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Maharashtra, Muhammad, Mumbai, Pakistan, State, Terrorism | 2 Comments »

Islamic terror attack in Mumbai: The idea is to strike into the hearts of the enemy and make them live in a state of perpetual terror

Posted by jagoindia on November 27, 2008

Rajaram: Jihad, Terrorism and Dhimmitude
In the Pakistani official manual, The Quranic Concept of War by Brigadier Malik, it is explicitly stated: “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.”

The idea is to make the enemy live in a state of perpetual terror. The authority for this is the Koran (Anfal 59-60): “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.”

This is the seed of indiscriminate terror employed by Grand Masters of the Order of the Assassins centuries ago, and by Osama Bin Laden and a host of others today. This belief in the power of domination through terror, and its legitimacy, is what needs to be defeated. But first, it is necessary to recognize that this legitimacy rests on the scripture itself.

The basic truth is— terrorism runs like a thread throughout Islamic history. It is futile to try to separate Islamic terror from Islam.

The principles of jihAd elaborated in countless compendia composed by Islamic scholars, have been generalized from concrete practices of the Prophet, and confirmed by Allah through ?revelations? in the Quran. In turn, these principles have guided all swordsmen of Islam throughout these fourteen countries and in many lands.

India has had a prolonged experience of jihAd from the day when the first Muslim army stepped into Sindh in 712 CE and won its first victories after suffering a number of defeats for 78 years. Lands in Seistan, Khurasan, Transoxiana and Afghanistan where Hindu religion and culture had flourished for long, had been subjected to jihAd in earlier years. We are citing some of the prominent jihAds waged in India by the most famous mujAhids. Rest here

To this day, militant Islam sees India as “unfinished business” and it remains high on the agenda of oil-rich Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia rest Islam’s Other Victims: India

Muslim appeasement has crippled India

Why terrorists can relax in India

Prophet Muhammad on Holy War Against Al-Hind (India)

Andre Wink describes that this aspiration to conquer India had existed since the time of the Prophet, as is evidenced by the sacred texts:

“… in the hadith collections the prophet Muhammad himself is credited with the aspiration of conquering India. Participants in the holy war against al-Hind [the Hindus] are promised to be saved from hell-fire… Thus also an eschatological work which is called the Kitab al-Fitan (’Book of Trials’) credits Muhammad with saying that God will forgive the sins of the members of the Muslim army which will attack al-Hind, and give them victory.”11 source


In one of the Hadiths (Muslim scripture) the Prophet Muhammad is
quoted as saying “Two groups of my Ummah Allah has protected from
the hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group that
will be with Isa ibnu Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary).” The first
attempted invasion of India by Muslims occurred in 636 CE — under
Caliph Umar, within four years of Muhammad’s death. The first 16
invasion attempts utterly failed.

Source = Al-Hind by Andre Wink

SIMI’s secular admirers

When cowards run the State, the nation bleeds

Wondrous Treatment Of Kafirs In Islam

After reading the above passages you should be able to comprehend the true nature of a muslim and the reason behind the countless killings, rapes, arsons, and loots done by muslims throughout history. Now I will quote from the Quran below to support what I have stated above. The chapters and verse numbers are also stated here for refernce.

Verses from the Koran:

VIII/12: When thy Lord inspired the angels (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Here one can clearly see that the Quran is openly saying to the muslims to give a torturous death to those who are non-believers of the Islamic faith.

XCVIII/6: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the people of the Scripture and idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

From the above passage you can clearly see that according to Mohammed, Allah has reserved a special place for non- mulsims–HELL!

IX/5: Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor- due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This verse tells us that muslims are free to convert non-muslims by force and brutality. If unsuccessful in doing so, they are free to kill.

IX/73: Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.

LXIX/30-37: (It will be said)Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in Allah the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.

Here we get a description of how to punish Non Muslims. This is in practice even today in Islamic countries. In fact, the Sikh Gurus and their families were tortured by muslims as prescribed in the Quran. For example, Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur on refusing to accept Islam, was brought to the prison in a cage like he was a wild animal. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of him. One of them was Bhai Mati Das. He was sawed alive. The other was wrapped up in cotton and burnt alive. Bhai Dyala, the third one, was boiled alive. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was brutally tortured and killed in a similar fashion. We see further support of these types of torments in the verses below.

XLIV/43-50: LO! the tree of Zaqqum (The tree that grows in the heart of hell bearing fruits like devil’s heads) – the food of the sinner. Like molten brass, it seetheth in their bellies as the seething of boiling water. (And it will be said): Take him and drag him to the midst of hell, then pour upon his head the torment of boiling water. Saying: TASTE! LO! thou wast forsooth the mighty, the noble! Lo! this is that whereof ye used to doubt.

IX/123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

IV/144: O Ye who believe! choose not disbelievers for your friends in place of believers. Would you give Allah a clear warrant against you ?

This verse clarifies the fact that a true Muslim can never be a friend of a person of another faith. People who believe otherwise are under delusion.

IX/29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility.

This verse in Quran gave birth to the law that all non muslims living in an Islamic state have to pay the jiziya or poll tax for the privilege of being there. These people are called zimmis and are allowed to live and work in the Islamic lands under the following 20 disabilities: (one has to wonder if apartheid was derived from this)

  1. They are not to build any new places of worship.
  2. They are not to repair any old places of worship which have been destroyed by the muslims.
  3. They are not to prevent muslim travellers from staying in their places of worship.
  4. They are to entertain for 3 days any Muslim who wants to stay in their homes and for a longer period if the muslim falls ill.
  5. They are not to harbor any hostility or give aid and comfort to hostile elements.
  6. They are not to prevent any one of them from getting converted to Islam.
  7. They have to show respect to every Muslim.
  8. They have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings.
  9. They are not to dress like muslims.
  10. They are not to name themselves with Muslim names.
  11. They are not to ride on horses with saddle and bridle.
  12. They are not to possess arms.
  13. They are not to wear signet or seals on their fingers.
  14. They are not to sell or drink liquor openly
  15. They are to wear a distinctive dress which shows their inferior status and separates them from Muslims.
  16. They are not to propagate their custom and usages among the muslims.
  17. They are not to build their houses in the neighbourhood of muslims.
  18. They are not to bring their dead near the graveyards of the muslims.
  19. They are not to observe their religious practices publicly or mourn their dead loudly.
  20. They are not to buy muslim slaves.

Here again I have stated another handful of facts which expose the true nature of Islam. Any logical person by now should have realized that Islam is meant for the lowest of the low. The followers of Islam are mindless tyrannical demons who know nothing better than killing and torturing people in the name of Allah. And they do this because a pervert named Mohammed, among other things, promised his followers 72 Houris (Beautiful Virgin Women) and virility of 100 men in ‘Jannat’ (Heaven). This is very puzzling–why virility of 100 men and only 72 houris? Why not 100 houris? The answer is very simple–the prophet Mohammed promises these “pious” muslims that they will also be given 28 young boys in addition to the 72 houris for their sexual pleasure.

NOTE: The works of A. Ghosh and Anwar Sheikh have been used in this article.

Anti Hindu Marxist historians whitewash Indian history of Islamic atrocities

Censoring of Indian History

By Nithin Sridhar

THE history of India has been whitewashed and distorted, first by European rulers, and after Independence by eminent historians of India and their supporters—the leftists, seculars and self-claimed progressives of India to meet their own ends. They have painted the pre-Islamic invasion period as a Dark Age and have glorified the Islamic period to be very peaceful and prosperous.

Ram Swarup says, “Marxists have taken to rewriting Indian history on a large-scale and it has meant its systematic falsification. They have a dogmatic view of history and for them the use of any history is to prove their dogma. Their very approach is hurtful to truth. The Marxists’ contempt for India, particularly the India of religion, culture and philosophy, is deep and theoretically fortified. It exceeds the contempt ever shown by the most die-hard imperialists.”1 Some of the common claims of these so-called eminent historians are:

1] The Aryan Invasion Theory is true.2

2] Large-scale destruction of Buddhists and Jain temples was done by Hindus in pre-Islamic India.3

3] The Muslim rulers were religiously tolerant and Islamic rule was prosperous. The eminent historians deny the destruction of Hindu temples or the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers. They also deny the religious motive behind the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers.4


1. Indian Express, January 15, 1989, quoted in book Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol.-1 by Sita Ram Goel.

2. For example, JNU historian Romila Thapar. (Article titled “Romila Thapar Defends the Aryan Invasion Theory!” by Vishal Agarwal, published at

3. In a letter published in The Times of India dated October 2, 1986, Romila Thapar had stated that handing over of Sri Ram’s and Sri Krishna’s birthplaces to the Hindus, and of disused mosques to the Muslims raises the question of the limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites. How far back do we go? Can we push this to the restoration of Buddhist and Jain monuments destroyed by Hindus? Or of the pre-Hindu animist shrines? (Quoted in book- Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol. 2. The Islamic Evidence by Sita Ram Goel.)

4. In his book Medival India (NCERT 2000), Satish Chandra writes, “The raid into India (by Timur) was a plundering raid and its motive was to seize the wealth accumulated by the Sultans of Delhi over the last 200 years. Timur then entered Delhi and sacked it without mercy, large number of people, both Hindus and Muslims, as well as women and children losing their lives.”, but Timur repeatedly states in his memoirs, the Tuzuk-i-Timuri, that he had a two-fold objective in invading Hindustan. “The first was to war with the infidels,” and thereby acquire, “some claim to reward in the life to come.” The second motive was “that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels.” He further says excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the ulema and other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked.

Negationism and the Muslim Conquests

Hindu Slaughter: the account of the Islamic conquests of India

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them, especially within the scope of this short essay. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the many tens of millions over several hundred years 14. The value of the booty – jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates 15 – can never be measured. According to Durant, As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time. Rest Here

Posted in Appeasement, Hindus, India, Indian Muslims, Islam, Islamofascism, Maharashtra, Marxists/Communists, Media, Muhammad, Mumbai, Muslims, Must read article, Quran, State, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »