Obama Making Middle East a Witches Cauldron

If you think Obama Care is bad, just wait till you hear the new “peace” agreement that is due to be imposed on the Middle East over the coming weeks. Even if it works, a giant if, it will make the world much more dangerous: The purchase of Nuclear weapons by Saudi Arabia from Pakistan is going to make Middle East worse than witches’ cauldron. What’s worse than one radical Islamic nation with nuclear weapons? Two of them.

Right now, the world is abuzz with speculation over what is transpiring in the nuclear negotiations in Geneva. On one side is Iran, and across the negotiation table are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and the United States—plus Germany. Conspicuously absent from the negotiating table are many of Iran’s adversaries in the Middle East.
Disheartened by the talks, and fearing the inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, one nation is using this time to safeguard its national security through more extreme measures.According to a November 6 BBC report, Saudi Arabia has purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan. The report claims the weapons are ready to be transported at any time. The Saudis are the main counterbalance to Iran in the region. Being the largest and wealthiest of the Sunni Arabic nations, the Saudis are constantly at loggerheads with Iran.
The battle for dominance in the Middle East is being waged on multiple fronts at the moment. In Syria, the Saudis back the rebels; Iran backs President Bashar Assad. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia backs the Sunni minority; Iran backs the Shiite majority. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia backs the military; Iran supports the Muslim Brotherhood. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia backs the Sunni royal family; Iran backs the Shiite majority.
Though the Saudis and Iranians may not be in direct conflict, the two sides are fighting plenty of proxy wars. It is a struggle for control of the region between two factions of Islam: Shiite and Sunni.As Iran races toward the nuclear bomb, the likelihood of a regional crisis rises. For a long time, Saudi Arabia relied on foreign powers to keep Iran in check. That changed with the election of Hassan Rouhani. Perceived as a moderate, Rouhani has the international community—particularly America, one of Saudi Arabia’s most crucial allies—falling head over heels.
An American reconciliation with Iran truly is a game-changer for Saudi Arabia. It absolutely shreds the U.S.-Saudi alliance. The Saudis are already speaking of a ‘major shift’ away from the U.S. One source told Reuters, ‘Saudi doesn’t want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent’ on America, which it deems untrustworthy and treacherous.
We see this mindset transformed into action as Saudi Arabia arms itself with nuclear weaponry. The Saudis know they need to remain a credible threat to Iran, which is only moments away from obtaining nuclear weapons.
A lack of confidence in the U.S. to restrain Iran is forcing Saudi Arabia to extreme measures in its own policies.
As World Politics Review put it, “Despite the high-profile disagreements between U.S. leaders and the leadership of Israel, France, Saudi Arabia and other nations, America’s friends prefer a more assertive and competent U.S. on the global stage, particularly in the Middle East. That doesn’t mean American allies will hold back from trying to fill the spaces left empty by the United Stateless the Saudis would like America’s aid to keep Iran under control, King Abdullah and his princes have their own plans for the Middle East. These plans are by no means moderate.
Would a Saudi nuclear deterrent to Iran using WMD be a good thing? Considering Saudi Arabia’s history as an incubator of terrorism and its hostile stance toward Israel, it would not. The same BBC article about the Saudi acquisition of nuclear weapons contains graphics showing surface-to-surface missile launch facilities that can target both Iran and Israel.
The Saudis obtaining nuclear weapons would undoubtedly put Israel on edge. Israel has felt the effects of American abandonment in the months following the election of Rouhani. For a second adversary to acquire nuclear weapons would only heighten Israel’s fear of its neighbours and push it closer to acting alone in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel has long been suspected of having its own nuclear weapons, although it has never acknowledged this fact.
The loss of confidence in the U.S. in the Middle East is quickly turning the region into a nuclear powder keg where everyone is holding a match. Saudi Arabia can deny its investment in nuclear weapons, and Iran can deny its attempts to build them.
If one analyzes the situation, than the following deductions are natural:

1. Iran will have nuclear weapons, or it will be balanced right on the edge — within one month or less to make nukes.

2. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will go nuclear, to balance Iran.

3. America’s role as a guarantor of peace will be blown, crushed by Obama’s betrayal of Israel and the Arabs. America’s nuclear umbrella, which has kept world from major war since 1949, was always based on trust. Once you blow that trust, the umbrella disappears.

4. The coming victory of Bashar Assad in Syria, supported by Hizb’allah and Iran, will forge the much-feared Shii’ite Crescent that surrounds Israel and directly threatens Arab nations like Egypt, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).

5. Russia will replace America as a more trustworthy major power in the region, including the Eastern Mediterranean.

This is not a framework for peace. It is an unstable Rube Goldberg contraption that could lead to total war in a matter of weeks. It will never have the long-term stability of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the last forty years. On top of all those balancing acts, Israel will be driven back to borders that are much more vulnerable to Muslim terrorism. World conquest is a basic premise of Islam, and it includes Europe, Russia, and America.

The emerging agreement, which will be greeted by the Euro-American socialist media as peace on earth, will be much more like Munich, 1938 — a temporary truce on the way to much more dangerous times.

Here is a reasonable guess about the Obama-Putin proposal that is now being circulated around the major participants:

1. The U.S. and Russia will agree to cut back drastically on nuclear weapons. That has been the major aim of the Russians, because they can defend against a small nuclear attack, but more attacking nukes and missiles will overwhelm any existing defense. This has its own pros and cons, depending on Russian intentions. It is a major draw for Putin, because it reinstates Russia as a superpower on an equal basis with the United States.

2. American power will be deliberately set back around the world, which is Obama’s announced policy. The U.S. will no longer be the guarantor of peace, because (a) Obama has decided to cut down our armed forces to divert money to the new massive welfare state, and (b) nobody trusts us to provide a nuclear umbrella any more.

Within that U.S.-Russian umbrella agreement, the Obama fantasy will be that:

1. The Iranian nuclear danger will be reduced by a treaty, to be monitored by a great power inspection regime, aided by the UN. Because Russia will be one of the guarantor powers, and because Russia fears and hates the prospect of a radical Muslim nuclear power near its borders, it will want to restrain Iranian weapons development. However, Iran will be able to get real nukes in a month. Other WMD programs (like dirty bombs) are not controlled, especially from rogue forces like the 60,000 Al Qaida gangsters in Syria.

Obama and the Europeans will celebrate this as a great victory. But it will be a huge gamble with the security of the world. In the foreseeable future Iran will have ICBM’s that can reach our shores.

Hamas and Hizb’allah terrorism will be increased rather than stopped, because that is the routine of every Muslim power in history. For example, Pakistan and India are nominally not at war, but Pakistan has never stopped terrorist attacks on India. That is the standard strategy for Muslim powers, and having nuclear weapons will make terrorism even more attractive.

2. The Europeans will lose the American nuclear umbrella, and will appeal to Russia for nuclear protection. They must also modernize the nuclear capacity of France and Britain, because this will not be a one- or two-superpower world, but an ongoing arms race between multiple powers, all possessing weapons of mass destruction. The UN will pretend to conduct inspections, just as it did in Iraq and Iran, a laughable failure.

In other words, this will be a fantasy peace, just as ObamaCare is a fantasy healthcare program. Obama craves the appearance of success, but in truth he never bothers to find out if his fantasies actually work. He is hooked on personal celebrity.

Obama is likely to run for UN Sec Gen positiopn after 2016, a major reason for this dreadfully unstable, phony solution to nuclear and missile proliferation. Obama’s personal ambition is a big ingredient in anything he does. The Russians have figured that out, and saw it as an opportunity to reverse their decline as a superpower. Domestically we no longer have a functioning opposition, so that there is no critical thinking about absurd policies any more. That is why Obama Care is likely to fail over and over again. A number of O’Care “architects” have come forward in the last week to confess that yes, of course they were lying to Americans about their future healthcare. But they were lying for a good cause, naturally. In fact, they were making wild guesses and now have Americans in a trap. They won’t allow us to escape their fantasy trap no matter how bad it gets.

The same mad illogic governs this Middle East “peace” process. It’s just as phony and destructive as Obama’s medical takeover. The top goal is more power for the socialists. Healthcare and peace are strictly secondary.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi royal who seems to own most everything there is to own — a chunk of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, a piece of Twitter, all of Paris’s George V Hotel, the Savoy in London, and a Boeing 747 for his personal use — was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago the other evening (he and Bill Gates own most of Four Seasons Holdings), offering up the view — the view of an experienced negotiator from the Middle East — that U.S. President Barack Obama is outmatched by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran,” he told me, with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush. “We’re really concerned — Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East countries — about this.”
It is quite something for a Saudi royal to state baldly that his country is part of a tacit alliance with Israel, but Saudi leaders, like Israel’s leaders, are frantic with worry that an overeager Obama will accede to Iran’s desire to become a threshold state, one whose nuclear program is so advanced that it would only need several weeks to assemble a deliverable weapon. Alwaleed, like Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, believes that Iran, in its ongoing negotiations with the world’s major powers, will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program. “Why are they offering relief?” he asked. “Keep the pressure on. Sanctions are what brought about the negotiations to begin with! Why not keep the pressure up?”
Obama, Alwaleed says, is a man who is in desperate political straits and needs a victory — any victory — to right his presidency. “Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obama care. That’s scary for him.”
Alwaleed believes a stronger president would have the willpower to say no to a flawed deal with Iran. Like the Israelis, the Saudis believe a flawed deal is one in which Iran isn’t forced to put its nuclear program in reverse, by shuttering facilities and mothballing centrifuges. (Alwaleed is not a Saudi government official, but he often floats trial balloons on behalf of the members of his family who rule his country, and they consider him free to make impolitic statements they believe but cannot publicly endorse).
“This has been going on for 30 years plus, since the Iranian revolution in 1979,” he continued. “And his people bragged about the first call between President Obama and President Rouhani. But what does a call mean? It’s nothing.” He went on to condemn Obama for folding when confronted with proof that Syria, Iran’s proxy, used chemical weapons against civilians. Obama had previously warned Syria not to cross the red line he drew on the deployment of chemical weapons.
“When he put that red line out, and the red line was crossed, he blinks,” he said, going on to suggest that Obama is mistaken to believe that Syria will, in fact, ship out all of its chemical weapons, as it has agreed to do. “You think the chemicals are going to come out, one hundred percent? Come on. Even if he lets them go, the same people who produced them before will produce them again.” When Obama “blinked,” Alwaleed suggested, the Arabs came to the conclusion that he would not stand up to Iran, either.
Alwaleed suggested that it may ultimately be the Iranian leadership itself that saves the day, by rejecting a compromise offer it sees as unacceptably tough — but one that Iran’s Israeli and Arab adversaries see as unacceptably accommodating. “You and I both know that the real power is with Khamenei” — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader — “and not President Rouhani. There are two theories, one that that Rouhani sincerely wants to negotiate but he can’t give up this program, and the second theory, which is — come on, give me a break, they don’t want to do this. Either way, Khamenei is the real ruler.” He went on, “We just saw Khamenei issue an announcement saying to his own negotiators that before they go and talk they shouldn’t cross his own red lines.”
If the negotiations don’t succeed — and clearly, Alwaleed sees no chance of success — then what? Anti-proliferation by force? I asked him if he thought the Arab states would actually back an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if this terrible option should come to pass.
“Publicly, they would be against it,” he said. “Privately, they would love it.” What about at the level of the so-called Arab street? “The Sunnis will love it,” he said, referring to the dominant branch of Islam, to which most Arab Muslims adhere. “The Sunni Muslim is very much anti-Shiite, and very much anti-, anti-, anti-Iran,” he said.
You’re sure they loathe Iran more than they loathe Israel? “Look, Iran is a huge threat, historically speaking,” he said. “The Persian empire was always against the Muslim Arab empire, especially against the Sunnis. The threat is from Persia, not from Israel. This was a great empire ruling the whole neighborhood. I’ll tell you something — they are in Bahrain, they are in Iraq, they are in Syria, they are with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, which is Sunni, in Gaza. They are intruding into these areas. King Abdullah of Jordan had a good statement on this — he said that a Shiite crescent begins from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and goes down to Palestine, to Hamas.”
Alwaleed, who spent much of our time together criticizing Obama, also reserved some criticism for Saudi Arabia’s Jewish ally. He said that if Netanyahu would make advances in the peace process with Palestinians, he would help marginalize Iran. “If you want to weaken Iran’s position in the Arab world, you should have peace with the Palestinians. This would help move Iran away from this issue. This is the heart of it. Hezbollah will not go away, but they will be weakened.”
This last piece of analysis made good sense to me. As for the rest of his analysis? It is easy to write-off Saudi fears of Iranian regional domination as part of an internecine Muslim struggle that is ultimately immaterial to the core national security interests of the U.S. On the other hand, countries that have had long and bitter experience with Iran might have something to teach American negotiators as they strive for a deal.

The Fiction of Japan’s Self-Defense Force

Japanese elites have always regarded the nation’s ‘self-defense force’ as having the potential to act in an offensive role when the need arises.

Raised in 1954, Japan’s so-called “self-defense force” comprises a fully integrated, ultra-modern assemblage of land, sea and air components that rival those of any other world power in the quality and efficiency of its organization and the ability to project its power far beyond the home nation’s shores.

Aided and abetted by the United States, the creation of Japan’s Self-Defense Force (SDF) was in direct contravention of the Japanese postwar constitution, which clearly stated that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

Having noted that, it should be further noted that no formal treaty or agreement exists between Japan, the U.S. or the UN which binds the nation to official reliance on either, nor on any other entity, for its security and defense. Thus it is that Japan has quietly built up a military force to potentially rival that of most world powers, in reality to protect its present national, and future imperial, interests.

Similar to Germany—a nation whose defense budget is roughly equivalent to that of Japan—till recent times Japanese elites have been careful to stress the self-defense role of its significant military force. Much publicity is given to its humanitarian and peacekeeping support roles.Andthat attitude is rapidly changing under current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Just as the Balkan Wars were used by German elites to reintroduce a German offensive military force to the global public, Japan is using two perceived threats to its security as catalysts to changing the view of politicians and the public to support more offensive deployment of its SDF.

Geopolitically, the most immediate threat to Japan comes at present from China’s increasing economic and military strength added to continuing friction between Taiwan and China and between North and South Korea.

Another major concern is the protection of vital sea lanes between the Middle East and Japan. With Japan receiving 90 percent of its oil through the Persian Gulf from the Middle East, the maintenance of reasonable stability in the region—especially the security of shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, India Ocean and Straits of Malacca—is vital to Japan’s ongoing security and economic development.

The true scope of the Japanese elite’s support of the nation’s military efforts is substantially revealed in the following assessment of its military expenditure: “Japan’s defense budget is still estimated to be one of the five or six largest in the world. In 2006, Japan had a $45 billion defense budget, the fourth-largest in the world, and ironic for a country that officially doesn’t have a military. In 2002, Japan spent $42.6 billion on defense, more than France, Russia and China. Only the United States spent more” (Facts and Details, Jeffrey Hays, January 2013).

The real fiction in relation to Japanese defense is that its considerable military might is viewed by Japanese leadership as being purely for self-defense purposes. The reality is that the sheer strength of current Japanese military power—let alone its potential for rapid growth—belies the intent of Article 9 of its constitution, the clause that ostensibly restricts Japan to mounting a force of a nature sufficient for the self-defense of its immediate geographic arena.

It also begs the question as to why Japan would seek to become a nuclear power. As the Christian Science Monitor observed, “With the technical means to build advanced nuclear weapons within six months, what remains is the political judgment of the ruling elite of Japan first to assess its strategic imperatives and then the political consequences of going nuclear” (April 25, 2005).

Under Prime Minister Abe, it appears that the “political judgment of the ruling elite” in Japan is to enable Japan to become a nuclear-armed military power of some consequence.

As Global Research reported on May 7, “A nuclear-armed Japan would dramatically alter relations in Asia, as it would be less dependent on the U.S. militarily and more able to independently prosecute its economic and strategic interests.”

But the real fiction here is that Japan is being forced into a more aggressive defensive stance by pressure from the U.S. That is simply not the case.

The plain fact is that, under the cloak of Article 9 of its constitution, Japan—entirely of its own initiative and in its own national interest—has built one of the most powerful military forces in the world, a force with the capability of power projection far beyond the realm of self-defense.

How soon will the world wake up to the fiction that a pacifist Japan continues to be content with a military role of purely self-defense?

Japan will soon join with China and Russia to form the greatest military combine ever in history. In fact, the formation of that massed international force is a great harbinger to the mightiest of all battles

EU Regulations: “Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats”?

The European Union and its supporters say the bans are necessary to improve the energy efficiency, environmental friendliness and health standards of the 28-member bloc.European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, “Class I” and “Extra class” cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. “Class II” cucumbers can bend twice as much. Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.

“This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control. All this new law does is create a raft of civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture.” — Ben Gabel, Director, UK-based Real Seed Catalogue.

European bureaucrats have also imposed bans or restrictions on thousands of other consumer products, including bananas, clothes dryers, cosmetics, cucumbers, fruit jam, laptop computers, laundry detergents, light bulbs, olive oil, plastic bags, refrigerators, showerheads, television sets, tobacco, toilets, toys, urinals and wine cooling cabinets.

In Germany, opposition is mounting to an EU directive on water-saving showerheads and faucets. The most recent ban—approved by the European Parliament on October 8—involves chocolate candy cigarettes because they “appeal to minors and consequently form a potential gateway to using tobacco products.”

The European Union and its supporters say the bans are necessary to improve the energy efficiency, environmental friendliness and health standards of the 28-member bloc.

But critics say the seemingly endless number of bans, prohibitions, restrictions, regulations and edicts being enacted by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels—many of which are being justified by eco-related concerns—smacks of paternalism. They claim it is over-regulation, and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of 500 million EU citizens, who should be allowed to make their own decisions.

The vacuum cleaner ban was quietly approved during the summer holidays in August and went largely unnoticed by the general public until after the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published a story about the new law on October 24.

“As of September 2014, only vacuum cleaners that consume less than 1600 watts may be sold in the EU,” according to FAZ. “From 2017 only a maximum of 900 watts will be allowed. At the same time, the vacuum cleaner must be fitted with a label that grades energy consumption on a scale of seven letters and colors: The letter ‘A’ on a green background means very low energy consumption and the letter ‘G’ on a red background means very high energy consumption.”

Critics say the EU’s move to restrict the power of domestic vacuum cleaners—current vacuum cleaners boast an average of 1,800 watts—will reduce their effectiveness in sucking up dust and dirt; and, because households will have to use the new machines longer, they may end up actually increasing energy consumption.

Others say it will reduce the ability of vacuum cleaners to remove fine particles from the air, and instead pump them back into the atmosphere, potentially leading to side-effects for allergy and asthma sufferers.

In an interview with the London Daily Telegraph, Giles Chichester, a Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar, said: “Banning powerful cleaners in households could have a severe impact on allergy and asthma sufferers. This is another example of how EU legislation has good intentions but sometimes there are detrimental side-effects. I hope that both the EU and the UK government can find a way around this so that we improve energy efficiency without forcing people back to their broomsticks.”

FAZ puts it this way: “Housewives and househusbands must be re-educated. Previously any halfway savvy consumer would relate the power of a vacuum cleaner to the horsepower of a car: the higher the wattage, the higher the suction power. So will everyone who uses a ‘Green A’ vacuum cleaner in the future be forced to use it three or four times to ensure that all crumbs are absorbed from under the breakfast table?”

The vacuum cleaner ban is part of the European Eco-design Directive, a wide-ranging legal framework approved in 2005 that establishes mandatory ecological requirements for energy-using and energy-related products and appliances in all 28 EU member states. The directive currently covers more than 40 product groups, which are said to be responsible for around 40% of all EU greenhouse gas emissions.

European bureaucrats have used Eco-design regulations to ban dozens of products, including the incandescent light bulb, which has been outlawed in all EU countries. As of September 1, 2012, hundreds of millions of EU citizens—who were never consulted on the issue—have been required to buy energy-efficient fluorescent lamps, which contain toxic materials such as mercury.

Because the EU does not require retailers to take back the new bulbs, 80% end up in household garbage, leaving the mercury to ultimately seep into the soil or groundwater, according to an Austrian documentary film called “Bulb Fiction.”

The makers of the film believe that the European light-bulb lobby, including major companies such as Philips and Osram, are behind the demise of the cheaper incandescent light bulb because of the larger profit margins associated with more expensive energy-saving light bulbs.

According to the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, the EU ban on light bulbs was motivated less about genuine environmental concerns than it was about scoring political points on the international stage.

“A ban on incandescent light bulbs, which would be relatively easy to implement, would enable the EU to score some quick victories on the climate front. After all, the EU’s pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 was highly ambitious from the start,” according to the magazine.

Light bulbs and vacuum cleaners are not the only products targeted for higher energy efficiency. As of November 1, “the weighted condensation efficiency of condensation tumbler dryers must not be less than 60%,” according to European Commission Regulation No. 932/2012 dated October 3, 2012 which implements “Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers.”

On November 4, the European Commission—the executive body of the European Union—adopted a proposal that requires member states to implement measures to reduce the use of plastic bags. That same week, Brussels announced criteria to standardize the flushing of all toilets and urinals in the EU. The decision followed years of efforts by experts working for the European Commission’s environment directorate, as well as “stakeholders” studying “user behaviour” and “best practices.”

According to a 60-page technical report on European toilets and urinals—which took two years and an unspecified amount of taxpayer money to complete—EU experts have agreed that two “key elements” appear to affect the water consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and user behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and “based on the discussions with stakeholders,” the experts have decided to set the average flush volume as “the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced flush volumes.”

In May 2013, the European Commission announced the so-called Plant Reproductive Material Law, an Orwellian directive that would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the EU Plant Variety Agency. The new law would give Brussels authority over all plants and seeds bought and sold in all 28 EU member states, and would prohibit home gardeners from growing their own plants from non-regulated seeds. Critics say the new law is an effort by the EU to gain “total domination of the food supply.”

“This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control,” according to Ben Gabel, director of the UK-based Real Seed Catalogue. “All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while interfering with the right of people to grow what they want, and charging fees for the use of plants that were domesticated and bred by the public over thousands of years of small-scale agriculture,” says Gabel.

Arguably the most famous examples of EU over-regulation involve rules on the physical appearance of fruit and vegetables. For example, European Commission Regulation No. 2257/94—also known as the “bendy banana law”—states that all bananas bought and sold in the EU must be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature.”

According to the regulation, “Extra class” bananas must be of “superb quality,” while “Class I” bananas can have “slight defects of shape,” and “Class II” bananas can have full-on “defects of shape.” The document states that the size of the banana is determined by “the grade, i.e. the measurement, in millimeters, of the thickness of a transverse section of the fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.”

In the instance of cucumbers, European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, “Class I” and “Extra class” cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. “Class II” cucumbers can bend twice as much. Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.

Amid public outcry, Brussels eventually reversed its ban on curvy cucumbers—as well as on imperfectly shaped Brussels sprouts, carrots, cherries and garlic—as part of the EU’s effort to cut “unnecessary” red tape.

“We simply don’t need to regulate this sort of thing at EU level,” EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said, adding that in the context of skyrocketing food prices and general economic difficulties, it made “no sense” to throw away perfectly good products due to their shape.

The “eurocrats” in Brussels have suffered a number other symbolic defeats by European citizens fed up with runaway regulations. In March 2013, for example, the British government relaxed EU rules defining fruit jam.

According to EU rules, jam can only be labelled as such if it has more than 60% sugar in it. However, under new rules proposed by London, that figure will fall to 50%. The difference had created what has been called a “no-jams land,” meaning that jams with a sugar content between 50% and 60% had no legal name; anything containing less than 60% had to be called a “fruit spread,” while jams with less than 50% sugar were to be called a “conserve.”

This is exactly the sort of ridiculous red tape that we want to do away with,” according to Vince Cable, the British Business Secretary, said in an interview with the London Telegraph. “This looks like jam, smells like jam and tastes like a jam—the only thing stopping it being called jam is some outdated rules. We want to sweep away unnecessary bureaucracy like this which is costing business time and money and stopping them doing what they should be doing: creating jobs, boosting the economy and in some cases, making jam.”

In May 2013, the European Commission announced plans to ban the use of refillable bottles and dipping bowls of olive oil at restaurant tables. The refillable bottles are a staple on restaurant tables across Europe for diners who want to douse bread or salads.

The EU said that as of January 1, 2014, restaurants may only serve olive oil in tamper-proof packaging, labelled to EU standards. It said the move would protect consumers and improve hygiene.

But after critics accused Brussels of unwarranted meddling at a time of economic crisis, the European Union quickly backed down. According to Dacian Cioloş, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, the ban was “not formulated in such a way as to assemble widespread support.”

The EU’s reversal was possibly influenced by the release on May 13 of a Pew Research Center poll showing that positive views of the European Union are at historical lows in most of the eight countries surveyed, even among the young, the only hope for the EU’s future. According to the poll, entitled “The New Sick Man of Europe: The European Union,” the favorability of the EU has fallen from a median of 60% in 2012 to 45% in 2013.

In Germany, meanwhile, opposition is mounting to an EU directive on water-saving showerheads and faucets. According to the German business newspaper Handelsblatt, German appliances are already using 20% less water than in 1990, leading to a situation where the country’s sewage pipes are in danger of drying up and cracking because not enough water is being flushed through the system.

In any event, German politicians appear increasingly fatalistic about the future of the EU’s Soviet-style “central planning” apparatus. According to Sven Giegold, a Member of the European Parliament with Germany’s Green Party, Europe’s economic system “has now become too complex for a democracy.”

Holger Krahmer, a Member of the European Parliament for Germany’s business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), puts it this way: “We are heading for a dictatorship of bureaucrats.

The Hoax of Outbound FDI – Siphoning Out Ill- gotten Fund

Money launderers in India have devious ways to take money out of the country. The Indians usually go gaga whenever any entrepreneur sets up or takes over a unit abroad. The jubilation that ensued after Tatas took over Jaguar is a case in point. The reality is more often than not, the takeovers are a camouflage for taking ill-gotten funds out of the country. In the first week of October 2013 several media reports pointed to certain serious irregularities in the financial statements of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited – a listed company in India. The amount involved in this “corporate fraud” according to these Press reports runs into several thousand crores.

If true, parallels with Satyam accounting fraud are inevitable and would further diminish the already shaky investor confidence on India. But that is at the corporate level. And the issue is not one relating to corporates and their shenanigans but something that concerns the finances of the country, more specifically the foreign exchange management of the country.

Central to the issue of Gujarat NRE Coke is the refusal by the auditors of the overseas Australian subsidiaries to certify them as ‘Going Concern’ – technically implying that these subsidiaries are gone hook, line and sinker. Damningly, an audit opinion was impossible from their side for lack of “appropriate and sufficient audit evidence.” Surely something is terribly wrong with this company.

What is galling for an average investor is that approximately 91 per cent of the consolidated assets and 65 per cent of the combined revenues of this Rs 10,000 crores conglomerate are owned/derived by its Australian subsidiaries – the very subsidiaries that the auditors refused to certify as ‘Going Concern’.

In short, there is a gaping hole in the balance sheet of Gujarat NRE Coke that would shame Satyam. Thanks to the 2G Spectrum scam and the subsequent Coalgate scam, a Rs 10,000 crore scam no longer titillates an average Indian. Six weeks after the scam broke out, the moot question remains unanswered – where did the money go? What happened to the money?

Whatever be the answer, all these are part of larger scam involving India’s outbound Foreign Direct Investment program. The example cited above is perhaps the proverbial tip of the iceberg – and one that probably has the tacit blessings of the policy framers in RBI, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Finance Ministry.

Outbound FDI

Now for the text. Barring exceptions and sector-specific restrictions, since 1991 outbound Indian FDI was successively liberalized over a period as part of our new economic policies. Under the UPA regime the outbound FDI was gradually increased to 400 per cent of the net-worth of the Indian company.

Consequently, till 2004-05 India’s annual outbound FDI was negligible – a mere US$ 2 billion of outbound debt and equity was reported in that year. However, since 2005-06 the position turns dramatically when US$ 7.8 billion as debt and equity was invested by Indian businesses outside India through this route.

Subsequently US$ 13.30 billion was invested in 2006-07, US$ 18.50 billion in 2007-08, US$ 18.60 billion in 2008-09, US$ 13.60 billion in 2009-10, US$ 16.8 billion in 2010-11, and US$ 8.9 billion in 2011-12 for which data is available as on date.

In short, in the seven year between 2005-06 and 2011-12 India’s outbound FDI has been approximately a whopping US$ 100 billion! This is scandalous for a country that struggles to get US$ 10-15 billion as inward FDI into India.

Rule of thumb indicates that at least India must be in a position to earn a minimum US$ 4-6 billion annually as returns on these investments. The details pertaining to the returns from such investments are not available in the aggregate in public domain. Nor could these be gathered through RTI as the Reserve Band of India refused to part with the information citing confidentiality provisions. Consequently, on this point your guess is as good as mine.

Nevertheless questions remain: How much of the US$ 100 billion are genuine investments yielding reasonable returns and how much are sunk, just like what has happened to the investment involving Gujarat NRE Coke is a billion dollar question.

But there are larger unresolved questions. For the four years beginning 2008-09 to 2011-12 US$ 23.31 billion was invested in manufacturing abroad, US$ 17.03 billion in financial insurance, real estate and business services, US$ 5.19 in wholesale and retail trade and US$ 4.94 billion in agriculture and allied activities.

It may be fascinating to note that the most liberal estimates made by UPA spokesperson in the context of liberalizing inward FDI in Indian retail is US$ 5 billion in the next five years. And contrast it with the fact that Indian business in the four years between 2007-08 and 2011-12 has invested US$ 5.19 billion in wholesale and retail trade outside India!

Are Indian businesses are so competent and competitive to invest in retail abroad?

Why give away in excess of US$ 5 billion first to outbound investments and then mortgage the interest of the country by opening up retail trade to foreign players? Equally, it is hilarious to note that our businesses have invested US$ 4.94 billion in agriculture and allied activities – yes agriculture – all in a span of mere four years outside India!

If the sectors invested surprise you, destination countries for such outbound FDI will shock you. In the four years between 2008-09 and 2011-12 India allowed US$ 14.11 billion into Singapore and US$ 11.57 into Mauritius.

That is not all. Over the years India allowed investments into several tax havens like British Virginia Islands, Cyprus, Netherlands and of course Panama amongst others. And in several of these tax havens India allowed investments in manufacturing, agriculture and retail trade through the ‘subsidiary’ or ‘joint venture’ route.

Significantly, in 2011, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs diluted the provisions of S-211 of the Companies Act which originally mandated appending Balance Sheet of subsidiaries along with that of the Holding companies. Consequently, this allows a corporate like Gujarat NRE Coke limited to get away with daylight robbery.

The great Indian rope trick?

Obviously, the modern version of the great Indian rope trick is India’s outbound FDI. The investment of US$ 100 billion in a span of a mere seven years of which several billions have been invested into tax havens across continents is surely worrying.

Consequently, sums invested in such tax havens could vanish – especially if they are routed to other numbered accounts that define these very tax havens. Remember, this route is especially convenient to any Indian corporate that wants to pay kickbacks to powers that be in tax havens, where there are no audits, KYC norms and oversights.

Is there a sinister motive behind liberalization of India’s outbound FDI? Let us not forget India’s outbound FDI allows significant sums to be invested into tax havens without any let or fear.

That is not all. Several of Indian banks are reported to have given loans to overseas subsidiaries of Indian corporate through their off-shore branches. Significant portion of these are reported to have been routed to India through the inbound FDI route or to the Indian Stock markets through the Participatory Notes route.

In short, significant portion of India’s in-bound and out-bound foreign investment policy is under a cloud. Some of these could be used to fund pay-offs and kickbacks to the high and mighty in the Government. Some of these could be the well-planned loot of our corporate czars themselves. Some of these could be routed back into India and rig stock markets or for that matter, any other markets.

Let me make it clear: Gujarat NRE Coke is not an exception. Rather it is the rule. It is the rule where overseas subsidiaries of Indian corporates are increasingly becoming vehicles to launder wealth. In the alternative they are pass-through mechanisms to facilitate illegal transactions.

All these cumulatively have an impact on India’s fragile foreign exchange reserve management. It must be noted that India’s foreign exchange as on date is approximately US$ 280 billion. And outbound FDI into two tax havens – Singapore and Mauritius for the four year period mentioned above, exceeds US$ 25 billion. And that in my opinion puts things into proper perspective.

What must agitate the collective conscience of the nation is that the word ‘reserve’ in the English language implies a sense of excess. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign exchange reserves, it is not so. What we have is foreign exchange of approximately US$ 280 billion that is begged, borrowed or stolen, not one arising out of our trade surplus like that of China.

Surely, we have reached a threshold where we no longer can be silent spectators to this loot of India’s precious foreign exchange. Nor is it merely a question of being self-righteously pretentious on liberal economic ideas. The time for action is now.

For starters will RBI conduct an audit on the amount invested abroad? Will Ministry of Corporate Affairs look into the balance sheet of overseas subsidiaries of Indian corporate, especially in tax havens? Will the Serious Fraud Office look in to the matter of subsidiaries as conduits? Will the Enforcement Directorate conduct an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act?

Will the Parliament discuss this issue in all seriousness? Surely not. Will the Finance Ministry take action on all those who have facilitated this loot? Unlikely. Will the Opposition question the Government in the forthcoming winter session? \most probably these questions shall remained unanswered.

Is Islam Oppressed?


Day in and day out, the politicallycorrect leaders along-with Muslim representatives cry out that Islam is being oppressed. The breast beating continues. But is it really so? The statement of Abu Bekr does provide an insight into the reality. In an interview with ABC he stated:I am telling you that my religion doesn’t tolerate other religions. It doesn’t tolerate. The only one law which needs to be spread, it can be here or anywhere else has to be Islam.” [Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Abu Bekr, the spiritual leader of the Victorian terror cell suspect. The daily Telegraph, Sydney , Thursday, November 10, 2005, p.31]

WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC definition of oppression? Ask any Islamist this question and he will certainly provide answers such as: Kashmir, Palestine , Afghanistan , Iraq , Chechnya , Bosnia ….and so on. Think carefully, how true these statements are. In fact, if one takes the trouble to read the blood-soaked history of Islam, one could not help wondering why this label of oppression not be imposed on Islam itself? The unprovoked, savage invasions by the Bedouin Arabs, to subjugate, at the point of swords, the people of Iraq, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Armenia, Cyprus, Sicily, Crete, Spain, Afriqiya (north Tunisia), India to their fascistic/Arab imperialism (peddled as Islam) demonstrate a naked truth—that it was Islam who had started this oppression.

Therefore, the charge that the Islamic mayhem in the current world is due to what is happening (read oppression) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya are just sham pretensions by the Islamists, the ideological gurus of the Islamist terrorists and the suicide bombers. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, Turkey, France, Egypt, Sudan, Norway, Sweden, Canada, China etc …… have none of their soldiers fighting in Iraq , yet these countries are not immune from the Islamist terrorists’ attack. Did you ever wonder why?—why, not being satisfied with the campaign of unremitting terror in the infidel territories, the Islamist terrorists even have to terrorize the innocent people of these Islamic Paradises? To find the answer to such a perplexing issue please read on.

One fact stands out very clear from the hypocrisy of the Islamists. This fact is: Islam is grossly offended/oppressed by any un-Islamic moves of the infidels/not-so-good Muslims (like the Islamic Paradises, I listed above). This is simply because these Islamists audaciously believe that Islam is the only religion into which each and every person on this planet must be subjected to by hook or by crook—using terror, force and slaughter, if need be. They have the Qur’an solidly backing them up. This is the major theme of the Qur’an, which is so eloquently supported by the cleric, quoted above.

Here are a few verses from the Holy Qur’an which are 100% in support of the above imam of a mosque in Victoria, Australia:

The only religion is the religion of Allah, Islam…16:52

  • Muslims (Islam) are the best of righteous people…3:110

  • Allah has perfected Islam and it is the only religion for mankind (last verse revealed, and so, the final word of Allah disclosed to Muhammad)…5:3

  • Islam is the perfect religion; it will dominate all other religions…9:33

  • Islam is the perfect religion; it will dominate all other religions…9:33

  • Can’t worship anything other than Allah; Islam is the only right religion (the purpose of an Islamic state)…12:40

  • There is only one God (Allah) and all should bow to Islam…21:108

  • Allah proclaims Islam (the religion of truth) over all other religions…48:28

  • Allah has sent Muhammad to proclaim the ‘Religion of Truth’ (Islam) over all religions…61:9

What happens to those people who, despite the call to convert to Islam, do not follow suit? In the language of the Qur’an, they are worse than animals, believe it or not. Here is how the Holy Qur’an grades the Kafirs (infidels).

The worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb (unbelievers) who do not understand Islam…8:22

How about using (read sword) on those who refuse to convert to Islam or deviate from Islam?  After all, the Islamists are foaming: ‘Islam means peace’, ‘there is no compulsion in religion’, ‘killing one person is killing the entire mankind’, and so on. Because of such deliberate misleading propaganda by the cunning, crafty and sly Islamists and their bogies of western apologists of Islam, one might find it hard to believe easily that there could be anything in the Qur’an but unbound ‘peace’, incessant ‘love’ and boundless ‘mercy’ for the infidels. Sadly, to the disappointment of these gullible unbelievers, the Qur’an, in many verses, categorically exhorts the true believers to use force preemptively to convert the unbelievers to Islam.

Here is a sample verse:

Allah sent down iron as a material for war and for other benefits; whoever deviates from Islam is to be brought back with iron (i.e. with force, meaning use iron (sword) to force people to Allah’s religion)…57:25

And when all efforts to pursue the Kafirs to convert them to Islam have failed, or when the unbelievers resort to rejecting Islam openly, Islam stipulates that they be crucified or maimed. Read this terrible verse from Allah:

Punishment for waging war against Allah (i.e. the unbelievers who reject Islam) and His messenger is execution (beheading) or crucifixion or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land…5:33

One might still insist that the above verse is applicable only in war situations, when Islam and its founder, Muhammad (or Muslims) are/were attacked in a physical fight. Perish this thought, if you want to learn about ‘real Islam’. The words, ‘waging war’, in the above verse has very little to do with real combat (like Iraq , Afghanistan ). Any action, activity, remark, gesture, word/s, sound, utterance, look, manner, habit, conduct, style and so on, which are not in conformity with pure Islamic percepts are considered as blasphemous or ‘waging war’. Thus, even the slightest criticism of Islam, Muhammad, Qur’an or Sharia, verbally or in writing, might be treated as gross violations of Islamic tenets. These acts are absolutely blasphemous, and are punishable by death (by beheading, the Islamic method of slaughter). The conclusive proof of this dreadful provision is the appalling blasphemy laws enacted by most of the Islamic Paradises. This is the meaning of freedom of thought in Islam—the freedom to mete out capital punishment to those who dare to mildly criticize Islam, in any manner whatsoever. If anyone still has any suspicion of what I just wrote, let him consult the blasphemy law of any Islamic states, which complies one-hundred-percent with the Qur’anic verse I quoted above.

Below, I have listed a few innocuous activities, manners, social customs, traditions and the daily way of life, which the Kafirs blithely take for granted, but which are extremely un-Islamic. According to Islamic morals, customs and laws, these offensive activities/practices might be construed as oppressive to Islam and, therefore, they are legitimate targets for eradication, or they must be swiftly replaced by Islamic practices or Islamic purification. The very small number of Islamists currently occupying (the Islamists think that Allah has sent them to infidel lands to conquer it) the infidel lands (camouflaged as economic migrants or political asylum seekers or refugees) will fight tooth-and-nail, legally or politically, covertly or overtly to remove such un-Islamic practices from the infidel lands which they have occupied (migrated for Islamic occupation). They would, whenever possible, incessantly lobby the simple and fair-minded Kafirpoliticians to enact Islamic laws as a replacement for those infidel customs, traditions and values. In their language, this process of Islamisation by stealth is called ‘elimination of vices and promotion of virtues’—a secret method of inuring the infidels into Islamic imperialism.

Here is how Islam is oppressed by the unbelievers:

  • The infidels do not submit to Allah despite repeated warnings to them. This is the highest form rebellion by the Kafirs and undoubtedly, is an extreme form of oppression to Islam.

  • The infidel women go to swim in the beaches wearing bikini. Allah is greatly offended by such outrageous conduct of Islamically impure infidel women.

  • The Kafir nations vehemently condemn Islamic stoning in Islamic Paradises. Islamic penal code is written by Allah, how could the infidels condemn such a divine, merciful penal system? Allah is surely angry with the infidels.

  • The Kafirs’  law court incarcerates Islamic rapists, but, who, according to Islam, has the inalienable right to have unlimited sex with infidel women, no question asked. As per Islam, these infidel women (Islamically, all western women, who do not dress/conduct themselves as per Islamic/Bedouin custom are harlots, sluts and prostitutes and all infidels are incestuous, believe it or not) are Islamic captives.

  • To protect its innocent citizens from the genocide of the Islamist terrorists, the Kafirspass anti-terror laws, but the Islamists believe it is their basic Islamic right to terrorize the infidels. The anti-terror law is oppression to Islam, as this law violates the Qur’anic injunction of casting terror in the hearts of the unbelievers.

  • An infidel woman goes out of her house without hijab. This is oppression to Islam, as this violates the Qur’nic injunction that women must stay at home at all time and serve their husbands. In case she has to be out, she must seek her husband’s permission and must be ‘covered’, from head to toe.

  • Harami Kafirs enact law banning hijab in public schools. This angers the Islamists, as it amounts to flagrantly violating the Qur’an, and hence is oppressive to Islam.

  • The Kafirs refuse to pay jizyah (special privileges to the Arab Bedouins/Muslims). In modern times, this jizya is in the form of special privileges to the Muslims (for example, Bumiputra/Malay/Muslim policy in Malaysia, reservation of places for the Muslims inKafirs’ Universities, special concession on employment policies, affirmative policies exclusively designed for the incompetent Muslims…and so on). Non-payment of jizya tax is a gross violation of the holy Qur’an and is oppression to Islam.

  • When you expose that Islam allows unlimited sex with maid-servants (sex-slaves) and infidel women. These provisions are Qur’anic, so they are above any discussion.

  • When, through earthquake and Tsunami, Allah tests His believers in Islamic Paradises and the Kafir’s aid is delayed due to the poor/non-existence of logistical supports in those Islamic Paradises. Infidels must attend immediately to the Muslims’ plight—this is also a form of jizya on the unbelievers.

  • When you disclose that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), had between nine to twenty official wives and at least one sex-slave. Allah is angry when you discuss Muhammad’s intimate private life—a violation of Islamic privacy.

  • When the harami freethinkers disclose that the 52-year-old Prophet (pbuh) of mercy married a six-year-old girl and had sex with her when she turned nine. See above for the reason.

  • When the ‘Islam bashers’ reveal that Hazrat Omar (Allah’s mercy be upon him) married a four-year-old baby-girl when he was around 54-55 years old. See above for reason.

  • An infidel woman gives birth out-of-wedlock and she is treated fairly by the social security system of the harami (repugnant) Kafir. This oppresses Islam, as this woman must be stoned to death, as per pure, unadulterated Islam. The infidels are not respecting the sanctity of Islam.

  • Violating the Qur’an and Hadis,  Kafir men and women patronize pubs and drink wine and liqueur. Islamic punishment of forty lashes is not meted out for such naked un-Islamic indulgence. To further anger the Muslims, during Ramadan, the Kafirs heartily eat and jubilantly drink in public, in open view of the Muslims. This, of course is an unpardonable Islamic offence, as the infidels show no sensitivity/respect for the best religion on earth.

  • An unmarried Kafir woman engages in de-facto relationship with a man. This offends the migrant Muslims, but despite much harangue from the Islamist moralists, the Kafirsrefuse to change their law of personal freedom. This (the unbridled mixing of opposite sexes), is certainly a gross oppression to Islamic faith.

  • The infidel’s local council prohibits the use of loud speakers to broadcast the melodious tune of Azan (the Islamic prayer call). This is the violation of Islamic right of noise pollution, and, therefore is a gross tyranny upon Islam.

  • When, for security reasons and to apprehend the suspected terrorists of peaceful Islam , America , the Great Satan, requires all visitors to the United States to be photographed, fingerprinted and biometrically registered, it offends real Islam.

  • When the infidels and in-name-only Muslims patronize a theatre to enjoy a stage drama, Islam is gravely hurt, as this vilely violates the basic tenets of the Qur’an—no idol worshipping. Ditto for patronizing cinema houses. Acting in a drama/and or watching this performance is abhorrently un-Islamic. In Bangladesh , bombs are thrown in such premises, as visiting stage drama and enjoying a movie is oppressive to Islam.

  • When you quote those murderous verses from the Holy Qur’an it oppresses Islam. Embarrassing Allah /Islamists is a great offence.

  • When you quote those anti-feminist and misogynist hadis from Sahih al-BukhariSahih Muslim and Sunaan Abu Dawud, Allah gets slighted.

  • When the police embark on a clean-up operation in an Islamic enclave in a Kafirland. This action violates the incontrovertible rights of the Islamist terrorists to frighten the infidels—an absolute Islamic right enshrined by Allah in the Qur’an.

  • When the Kafir government disallows Sharia law to be enforced for the Muslims living in a Kafirland. Allah’s law supercedes all man-made laws, how could the abhorrent infidels annoy Allah?

  • When the devilish Islamphobes divulge that Hazrat Ali (Allah’s mercy be upon him) used to have sex with captive women, routinely, even when he was married to Fatima, Muhammad’s dearest daughter. Those who embarrass the Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) embarrass Allah. Allah will not forgive them

  • When the infidels learn from the writing of the Muslim apostates that Muslims must not be friendly with the Jews, the Christians and the unbelievers. When the Qur’an has decreed certain matters, it is a great offence to discuss about them.

  • The Kafirs in Kafirland, instead of adopting the Islamic values of the myopic Muslim community in their midst, urge the Islamists to respect multiculturalism. This is an affront to Islam. According to Islam, these Kafirs (read animals) must adopt pristine Islamic values, and not the other way round.

  • The Kafirs do not learn Arabic, the language of Allah/Islam, but instead, urge the Islamist immigrants to learn the language of their adopted country and try to integrate. Allah is offended when the Kafirs do not learn the language (Arabic) of His Scripture.

  • The western/infidel civilization refuses to adopt Bedouin/Arab culture. Instead, sticks to their own decadent, petrified, immoral, corrupt, lascivious way of life. Islam is oppressed when the Muslims, the best creation of Allah have to witness, with their open eyes, such blatant depravity and transgression. After all, Islam came to purify the world, but the infidels steadfastly refuse to comply. This is oppression to Islam.

  • Peaceful Islam is not allowed to preach hateful sermons by the clerics living in infidel territories. This is a gross violation of Islamic human rights, of freedom to preach hatred for the infidels, since this right has been fully enshrined in the Qur’an, the constitution of Allah.

  • Kafirs deport/cancel visa of firebrand clerics who exhort, in Friday congregations, jihad and murder of the infidels. Read above why Islam is oppressed for such an action of the Kafir.

  • Billboards near Allah’s house (mosques) in Kafir lands brazenly display women’s underwear, bras and lingerie in provocative manner, arousing the sexual passion in the devotees of Allah. This is oppressive to Islam, as Allah does not like to have a look at women’s undergarments and their half-clad body. Allah only looks at hijabi/Burka-clad Muslimahs.

  • Islamists living in Haram land pass by a fitness centre and observe infidel women (and men) performing physical exercise wearing sportswear. Offended, the Islamists complain to the local council and advise the authority that during physical fitness chore the women must wear Burka and jilbab, their shiny and sexy thighs and polished legs must be covered inside baggy Islamic trousers, otherwise, the doors and windows of the gym must be covered with black ‘hijab.’ The local council turns down the Muslim request. This is oppressive to Islam.

  • The Islamists in Kafir lands go to the local swimming pool and observe men and women practicing swimming together. This is grossly un-Islamic and is oppressive to the Muslims. They ask the local council to open separate swimming pools exclusively for Muslim women and without access to male visitors. The council turns down their request, which offends the Islamists.

  • In Olympic events, women are allowed to compete, in the presence of mixed spectators, in gymnastics, track and field, swimming, beach volleyball, high jump (despicable, because of the possibility of viewing the women’s pudenda), long jump, pole vault…etc., Allah is offended with such display of female flesh in such provocative/erotic manner. The Islamists write lengthy articles and lobby their politicians to ban women from participating in such events. In Islamic Paradises they successfully force the government to ban the telecasting of such ‘pornographic’ events of the International Olympic.

  • The infidels enact laws to prevent polygamy; Muslims could no longer acquire four wives at any time. This surely is a gross violation of Islamic rights of Muslim men to acquire four wives at any time, guaranteed by the Qur’an.

  • Imams extolling the goodness in beating wives to discipline them are deported from infidel lands. This is a great torment to Islam, as it openly violates the Qur’anic verse which calls to beat women to control them,

  • During Christmas gala, party, the Kafir invites his Muslim neighbor and unwittingly serves haram food and wine. The display of haram food and alcoholic drinks to the Muslims is, of course, very offensive. The infidels must not eat and drink haram stuff in the presence of Muslims—it is very odious, Allah becomes angry.

If you have time to spend, I am certain you could find many other actions and traditions of the infidels which are revoltingly offensive to the Muslims, and, therefore, oppressive to Islam. Many of those examples cited above were from my own experience—from real world. So be prepared to witness many such examples in your land as well.

The above list is just a sample example of the extent to which the Islamists are prepared to go to launch their agenda of globalization of Islamic imperialism, which is basically Arab/Bedouin imperialism.

Islam as Arab/Bedouin imperialism?

You see, the ultimate goal of the Islamists is the creation of a Pan Islamic world, which must be ruled by a caliph (the Islamists call it the Khilafat movement) who will be responsible to enforce Islamic laws (Sharia) globally. So, what are the requirements to be a caliph?—you might ask. According to Islamic law, (ref: Reliance of the Traveler, published by Amana Publications, Bettsville , Maryland , 1999, pp.640-642, law number o25.3) the mandatory qualifications of an Islamic caliph are: 1. must be a Muslim 2. must be a male 3. must be from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabs 4. must be a freeman (i.e., not a slave) 5. must be of sound mind.This provision of Islamic law means that the world—the Pan Islamic world, must be ruled by an Arab (from the Quraysh stock, probably from Saudi Arabia or Jordan ) and no one else. This also means that George Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Prime Minister, the Japanese Prime Minister….the most powerful infidel leaders in the world and the not-so-powerful infidel leaders must convert to Islam, declare complete allegiance to the new Arab/Quraysh caliph and become this Arab caliph’s appointed governors. If they do not comply with such Islamic demand then they must be removed by terror, intimidation and force. Please stop laughing! I hope by this time you clearly comprehend the reason of the Islamists terrorists of what they are doing around the globe. The Islamists are absolutely serious in their goal—the Islamic caliphate, and to assist them there is no shortage of Arab charity money to finance their strategy and operations. This is the reason why the Islamists, the Islamist terrorists, the Jihadists and the Islamist apologists have no shortage of fund—the Arab/oil money is aplenty to finance the establishment of a super Arab (Islamic) kingdom. This is what I mean by Arab Imperialism when I say that ‘Islam is Arab/Bedouin imperialism’.

Terrified, threatened and in panic, the unbelievers might want to know when this Islamic madness might end. I am afraid there is bad news for them. The war against the infidel world is a perpetual war. Islam divides the entire world/humanity into two—the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the world of warfare (Dar al-Harb). These two worlds are in permanent confrontation, until Islam replaces the current civilization with its own version, the Islamic Caliphate. This is what Samuel Huntington had ominously postulated in his classic work, The Clash of Civilizations. This inevitable clash is now on us, make no mistake on this.

Here are two verses from the Qur’an which clearly divide the civilization into two categories: Islamic and un-Islamic, and the declaration of a perpetual war against the infidels.

Believers fight for Allah, unbelievers fight for evil, so fight against the friends of Satan (this verse literally divides the into two camps—the world of Islam and the world of unbelief or Kufr; i.e., Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb) …4:76

Those who resist Allah and Muhammad will be humiliated (i.e. Islam, for ever, is at war with the infidels)…58:20


As exemplified from the most authentic source of Islam (Qur’an), Islam, truly is intolerant to any idea/faith which does not endorse it as the only religion for mankind. Any action/deed which is against the Qur’an is certainly oppressive to Islam. Once we understand this fascistic and imperialistic nature of Islam, the fight against the Islamist terrorism becomes quite simple and straightforward. It (the Islamic terrorism) is not at all a political one—it is an ideological war, truly, the collision of culture and civilization. But, in contrast to the battle among various civilizations, as hypothesized by Samuel Huntington, this clash is between two worlds—the word of Islam and the world of Kufr or unbelief. Let the PC politicians pay heed to what the cleric above had said. He is 100% Muslim and 0% politician/hypocrite.

The current world is about to be divided into two camps—the camp of Islam and the camp of infidels, without any third-world between them. Thus, having almost been polarized, a final showdown is gradually shaping up between these two camps. It is just a matter of time when this showdown will culminate in a massive loss of human lives—both Muslims and non-Muslims, unless correct steps are taken to diffuse this cataclysmic time-bomb. Read the Qur’an and the Hadiths, to learn who will win this showdown, if the showdown does really take place. You might be greatly surprised, if you were to believe these Islamic scriptures.



Islam Compared to other Religions

I would like to make a hypothetical comparison between the Islam and all other major religions of the world. I shall try to establish the very unique and specialcharacter of the religion Islamby an honest and impartial judgement. I shall attempt to answer this very prudent question by my own style. That is, I will generate the right answers from the mouth of those questioners themselves. Instead of answering this question, let me ask those Islamist, moderate Muslims and others the following questions:

  1. America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddhists etc). Every day, every hour or every minute—we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qaeda, and Taliban. My question is that, why don’t we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?

  2. In the North America and throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western “rotten” society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization?

  3. Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Harkat-ul- Jihad, Harakat-ul-mujahidin, Jaise Muhammad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tehrik-e-Nifaz-shariat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikma, Al-badr-Mujahideen, Jamaat-e-Islami, Hizb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.??? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?

  4. We can find dozens of countries ruled by Islamic Shariaat (Hudud laws) where Quran is the only viable constitution. Remaining Muslim majority countries also have family laws enforced as per Quranic laws. We can still find many Islamic Republics exist in this modern world of 21st century. My questions here are: Can we find any country ruled by Bible, Old Testament or Ghita today? Can we find just one Republic for Christian, Jewish, Hindus or Buddhas? If the answer is no, then please tell us why no?

  5. Islam has become a fearful religion in the whole world today. Islamic terrorists are conspiring to kill innocent civilians, especially western civilians everywhere in the whole world. Whole civilized world is in a panic situation for fear of Islamic terrorism. Very recently, German police have arrested an al-Qaeda sympathizer and his fiancé on suspicion of planning to bomb the U.S. Army’s European headquarters and other targets in Heidelberg, Germany. Interestingly these arrested al-Qaeda sympathizers were none but Muslims who kept pictures of Osama bin Laden in their apartment. My questions are: why could not these two human beings belonging Hindu, Jew or Christian? Why can’t we incriminate any other religion for the similar cause?

  6. Honor killing is the most inhuman and most disgraceful act by any human standard. This act is condemned by any sane human being today. But surprisingly—this horrendous episode is only present in the Muslim countries and Muslim societies. Islamists will argue that there is nothing in the Quran which suggests honor killing! Well, question here is, if Islam has nothing to do with it, then why it is only practiced by Muslims? NO OTHER SOCIETIES EXCEPT ISLAM PRACTICE IT, PERIOD. Even in the same country—example Nigeria, Northern Nigerian (Muslims) do practice this heinous act, but Southern Nigeria (Christians) do not practice this at all. It may present in any country in the whole world—but 100% sure that it will happened only in a Muslim family. My questions here are—please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?

  7. Today in the whole world Muslims are apologetic to the entire humankind for the shameful terrorisms and constantly trying to erase this stigma by various apologetic fruitless arguments and excuses. They are trying very hard to disown Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists by saying “Islam has been hijacked” etc. Very recently, ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) held four days full-fledged program in the Washington, D.C. to disown the burden of doubt in Islam by using same-old apologetic slogans—”Islam is a religion of peace” or Prophet Muhammad is the God’s mercy to earth” etc. These Islamists of North America also tried to fool the westerners (may be they fooled themselves) by quoting a few good/kind Quranic verses. They all simply blamed Western Media for projecting Islam as the religion of terrorism. With much hypocrisy they absolutely hide all those hundreds of hateful/dreadful Quranic verses. My question here is—why any other religion do not need to do all these hypocrisies like Islamists are doing today?

  8. Jihad” is the most fearful and despised word spoken/uttering throughout the whole world today. This famous word “Jihad” belongs to one religion, and that is—”Islam”. My question is—why Jihad belongs to only Islam?

  9. Suicide-bombing only to kill innocent human beings is committed by Muslims only. In Palestine-Israeli conflict hundreds of incidents of such heinous suicide attempts have occurred so far. It was quite obvious that all these suicide bombers were brainwashed by the fiery inspirational teachings by Islamic clergy citing various Quranic dictums and hadiths. Among the Palestine citizens there are good percentage of Christian minority who support Palestinian cause and they are also enemy of Israel. Surprisingly, not a single “suicide bomber” could be found who was a Christian. My questions here are—why there was no suicide bomber evolved out of those Christian-born Palestinians? Why it is the only Muslims committing this horrendous act of suicide bombing?

  10. Mosque-Islamic center connections: all most every terrorist arrested or identified so far, they obviously (without fail) belonged to some Mosque or Islamic center. It was quite apparent that the terrorists arrested or dead was later identified as the member/visitor of certain famous Mosque or Islamic center. In most cases—Muslims attacked their rivals after the Friday prayers, because the fiery sermons of the Imam of the Mosque energize these fanatics. My questions here are—if Islam and Mosque has nothing to do with terrorists then why they could not be belonged to some other religious center such as Hindu Temple, Jewish Temple, Buddhist temple or Christian church? Or why they could not be even the members of some atheists/agnostic/homosexual clubs?

  11. Pure (Pukka) Muslims: all most all the terrorists (John walker Lind, Zakaria Moussai, Padia etc.) so far arrested or known to the authority are very pure and devoutly good practising bearded Muslims. Just last week, Swedish authority has arrested one suspected terrorist from on board an aircraft who attempted to hijack the plane and crash it to the American Embassy in the Western Europe. Later he was identified as the bearded young Tunisian born devout Muslim by the name Kerim shatty who wanted to go to join the Islamic conference in London. My questions are: Why they (terrorists) could not be from some moderate or not so good Muslim group? Why always terrorist have to be one of those most devout pukka Muslims? What possibly is the obvious indication here? Isn’t it true that any true followers (real Muslim who follows Quran and hadiths) of Islam could be a terrorist?

  12. Converts: we know conversion to other religion is a common phenomenon throughout the world. Many people convert to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. My questions are why it is only those Muslim converts turn into terrorists or Taliban (American Taliban, Shoe-bomber and dirty bomber suspect—they all are converted Muslims)? Why any other converts (Hindu or Christian) could not be a Taliban or terrorist?

  13. Clash of immigrants with the host: very recently, there were riots between the immigrant British citizens and the host Britons. Surprisingly those immigrant British citizens were none other than the Muslim immigrants (mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi). Britain has the immigrants from various countries and various religions. My question here is why those rioting-immigrants could not be from any other religions?

  14. Dress code and food restriction: Do you know Islam has a special dress code for both men and women? Islam is nothing but Arab nationalism in the disguise of religion. Anybody from any foreign land convert to Islam also needs to adopt/change his dress and cultural habits, which is nothing but Arab national dress and Arab culture. A devout Bangladeshi, Chinese or a Burmese convert to Islam will pretend to be a good Muslim by wearing Arab garb or hijab for women, even though his/her own national dress is not at all similar to Arab national dress. Muslims also follow very strict food codes. Unlike other religious groups, Muslims can not eat western most hygienically produced meat products. Muslims need to eat so called un-hygienically produced halal meat. Convert Muslims even need to learn Arabic for daily rituals of Islam. They are not allowed to pray in their own mother tongue. Result is they do not know what they are praying. But unlike Muslim convert, Hindu, Christian or Jewish converts do not need to forsake their own national dress code or languages. My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?

  15. Coercive imposition: Islam is the only religion in which peoples are being forced/coerced to observe Islamic daily rituals. In any Islamic paradise—like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Talibani Afghanistan, or any other Islamic Arab countries—Islamic police (Mutawalli) force general citizens to observe daily rituals very strictly. Anybody who fails to obey is punished by beating severely or even by imprisonment. Even in the moderate Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Clergies, general public or the elders will repeatedly remind or even force people to join the daily five time prayers/rituals of Islam. Anybody who do not join or refuse to join will be cursed, looked down or insulted by the seniors.

  16. Punishments for the crime: Punishments for the crime (like stealing, adultery, killings etc.) in Islamic paradise (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and many other Arab nations) according to Allah’s laws (Islamic Shariat or hudud laws) are cutting/chopping hands, feet and even chopping heads, or stoning death and lashings one hundred and one times. My questions here are: could we find such ancient uncivilized/draconian laws in any other religions today? If the answer is no, then please tell us why?

  17. Brotherhood in Islam: Islam is the only religion having brotherhood or Ummatic provision. One Muslim is considered brother of another Muslim only. A Muslim can not be a brother of Hindu, Christian or Jews or infidels. Muslims are forbidden even to pray for any infidels. Therefore, Islam is like a large-scale religious cult which does not recognize any other religion as pure religion. My question here is why no other religious group has such separatist brotherhood system?

  18. Islam and poverty: Poverty and Islam goes side by side. Islam means submission to Allah. Therefore, general muslims become like a dependent servant of unseen authority in the sky. Muslims loose their strength and desire of freethinking and innovation. Result is pure poverty. Look everywhere—Muslims are the most poor human beings on earth. Go to Africa or Asia—every muslim majority country is a desperately poor country. Please don’t try to cite some Arab oil-rich countries as the denial to my assertion. Because, that happened only due to the discovery of oil by the west—such as America and Britain. Before that, all the Arabs were miserably poor country. Muslims are poor even in a same country or region: In Nigeria—northern (Muslim majority) people are poor, but southern (Christian majority) people are rich and affluent. In Europe—only two most poor countries are Bosnia and Albania. Both of these European countries are populated by convert Muslims of same Caucasian white peoples. But they are poorer than their neighbors. My question here is why it has to be always like that?

  19. Muslim World: Do you know we have two worlds in the same planet earth? One is the real world (with every nation except the Islamic nations) and other is the Muslim world (with all the Islamic nations only). Surprisingly, there is no Christian world, no Hindu world or any Jewish world, Buddies world or infidel world. But we have Muslim world. My question here is: why there is no Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Jewish world?

  20. Democracy: Democracy was invented to establish people’s rules to govern a nation. Entire mankind know it well that no religious edicts/rules can be compatible with the modern democracy. But do you know—Islamists make their laughable claim that, “Islam is compatible with the democracy”? Islam is 100% incompatible with the democracy; even then Islamists readily claim that—”Islam is compatible with democracy”! My question here is: do we hear about Christian, Hindu or Jewish democracy?

  21. September 11, Episode: America and other nations of the entire world will remember Sept.11 as the most terrible day of the human history and everybody will pass the day with much sorrow and somber mood. But do you know there are some Islamic folks (special human species) in Finsbury Park Mosque in north London who will celebrate this horrible day as the “towering day” of Islam??? These Islamic fanatics will hail/applaud the Sept.11 devilish deeds of those AL-Qaeda heroes as the best deeds any Muslim can do. They will form the supreme Islamic council of London and will vow to fight for making England an Islamic Paradise. Their future plan will be to convert entire world including infidel America into a perfect Islamic Paradise.

Islam vis- a- vis other religions

Islam is the only religion which has “Shariaat book” which plays the constitution to implement its political agenda to a nation.

Islam is the only religion which holds that other religions must pay its followers an extortionary tax (Jiziya or poll-tax) in “humiliation.”

Islam is the only religion which preaches that reform of its doctrine and dogma to adapt to changing circumstances is a grave sin (“bida”)

Islam is the only religion which divides the world up into two spheres Land of Warfare “Darul harb(non-Islamic nations) and “Darul Islam(Land of Peace), and encourages the Land of “Peace” to fight against the Land of Warfare until it is completely “subdued”.

Islam is the only religion which expressly forbids separation of church (or masjid) and state.

Islam is the only religion which extracts the death penalty from any of its followers who wish to leave it (apostate) — a law which, again is unchangeable.

Islam is the only religion which holds up a single form of government — a non-democratic theocracy headed by a Khalifa — as the only legitimate form of government allowable on earth.

Islam is the only religion that upholds an extensive code of jurisprudence (unchangeable and barbaric and draconian in many cases) that governs every aspect of human life, both spiritual and temporal.

Islam is the only religion that largely forbids the free practice of other religions in its midst.

Please consider also these facts:

They can’t get along with Christians in Nigeria and Sudan

They can’t get along with Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe

They can’t get along with Hindus and Buddhists in Malaysia

They can’t get along with Hindus in the Sub-Continent

They can’t get along with Buddhists in Thailand and Burma

They can’t get along with Catholics in the Philippines

They can not get along with majority Chinese in mainland China

They can not get along with majority Russian (Muslims in Chechnya) in Russia

They can’t get along with Jews in the Middle East

They can’t get along with Coptic Christians in Egypt

They can’t get along with Christians in Indonesia

They can’t get along with Ba’hai in Iran

Shia and Sunni can’t get along with each other very well in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, etc.

Sunnis can’t get along with Ahmadis on the Sub-Continent and want to exterminate them.

In some of these cases, the atrocities are on both sides and there is plenty of blame to share by both sides. Nevertheless, there is a pattern here that is very disturbing.

The phenomenon is best explained by Huntington’s’ “Clash of Civilisations.” He claims:

* Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards

* Islam has more trouble coexisting with others than any other religion Christianity was superior to Islam in that it has a theological basis that allows to the possibility of change (Jesus himself said, “Render under Caesar what Christians is Caesar’s, render unto me what is mine.” That statement was used by secularists to help bring about separation of church and state, or at least mitigate the church’s influence on the political body.) Christianity also was not set up as a political state with its own set of detailed laws, etc.

There were “Christian nations” with some laws that were influenced by the Church, there was a Papal rule for a while, but nothing was set in stone. The law as a result was fluid and could be updated — as it was by the Magna Carta.

Islam does not have the theological basis for change. Secularism is strictly forbidden. Innovation (“bidaa”)is strictly forbidden. Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets — his word is final. Itjihad is (now) forbidden.

Islam was set up as a political state with numerous complexes, detailed temporal laws, not just a few general spiritual guidelines (as is the case with X-tianity.)

No theological basis for change. And thus no theological “bridge” to allow us to get from Charles Martel’s world to Thomas Jefferson’s world.

1. It is true that as late as 1648 , Islam was more enlightened than Xtianity In the 30 year civil war between Catholics and protestants, numerous massacres and atrocities including cannibalism was done

2. Christianity had separation of church and state, Jesus said Give unto Caesar what is Caesar and give unto god what is god

3. Jesus never did any violent act, on the contrary he prevented it.

4. The intolerance in Christianity and Islam is rooted in the old testament, The Koran is a rehash of the old testament, Mohammed was just as violent as Moses.

5. Due to item #2, #3, Christian reformers could claim to be devout Christians and humanize it and eventually defang it

6. In Islam there was a group called mu’tazilites which tried to rationalize (Sufism) Islam and failed

7. Without Charles Martel the west would have been a backward Islamic place

8. Since Islam does not have items #2 and #3, any reformer is killed as an apostate Internal reform in Islam is impossible, it will have to be defanged externally


I hope the true answers to the above relevant questions should positively identify the reasons and facts, as to, why we all should vigorously critiques and analyze the religion Islam. I do not believe there is any other religion which can be compared with the Islam today. Islam is positively an unique and most problematic religionin the whole world today.

Scientists are investigating/researching the current and emerging new diseases such as Aids, cancer, west Nile virus disease, diabetes, obesity etc. Scientist do not research on the diseases which are already controlled or subdued such as: Plague, Small pox, Cholera etc. Like wise, we do not need to discuss religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism which are controlled and subdued long time ago by the forces of secularism and democracy. Problem and maladies with Islam is current andseverely acute and dangerous today for the entire civilization. Therefore, it is an open secret why we should discuss/critique only the Islam today. Does it ring the bell to all?

It is also true that fanatical atrocities of any religions are as bad as the fanaticism of Islam. Besides, fanatics of any religions could be equally cruel and demon possessed, and we should critique fanatical acts of any religions. Recent atrocities of Hindu fanatics in Gujarat, India also deserve criticism from us. But the Hindu fanaticism was purely a local politically motivated sporadic incidence inside India only, and unlike Islamic fanaticism, Hindu fanaticism was not a worldwide phenomenon.

Lastly, let me throw an open challenge to all Islamists: if any Islamists can answer my all or some of the above questions, we promise, we will stop discussing/critiquing only Islam. That is if you can give the parallel situations exists todayin any other religion also, then we will start discussing that devil also. I hope this deal is quite fair for everybody! Thanks.

The 10 Most Diabolical Teachings in Human History

The human history is replete with the self-styled – and thereafter accepted by credulous millions- leaders who have have through their teaching  created dissension, created a milieu of strife that resulted in carnage and bloodshed.  However some teaching of Islam take a cake for the evil that they promote.   The 10 most evil teachings in history that surprisingly are divine teachings of Islamic God Allah. Probably that  Allah was not the loving God, but some blood thirsty creature whom the pre-Islamic Arabs used to worship as their God, that was probably the alter-ego of Muhammad.

Every word of the Quran was Muhammad’s own, which he put on the tongue of his imaginary friend Allah.

Most evil teaching # 1: Islam’s paradise of evil, demented, depraved sexual perversity

Verse 9:111 – Muslim’s passport to paradise

“Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.”

Islam teaches that if Muslims slay or are slain (kill or are killed) in the service of God, i.e. Jihad, they are guaranteed accession to Allah’s paradise of depraved sexual perversity. Islam’s Paradise is filled with whorish virgins possessing voluptuous breasts and lustrous eyes. Muslims, blessed with an access to Paradise, will have 72 such virgins to engage in incessant copulation. Furthermore, a Muslim’s surest way of getting a passport to Paradise, says Allah, is to get slain while trying to kill the kafirs. The Quran is no more a holy book than Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler are holy books. Indeed, the Quran is worse in that it incites unrestrained murder of infidels.

Most evil teaching # 2: Kill the infidels wherever you find them

Quran 9:5 (the infamous verse of the sword inciting mass murder):

“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.”

Verse 9:5 teaches Muslims to commit mass-murder. The kafirs must either convert to Islam, who would keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate (zakat), or be murdered. Command for unconditional slaying of humans, God’s own creations, by other humans – when presented as a sacred teaching of the almighty Creator – becomes a most evil teaching.

It is needless to say that such teachings never came from the God, if there is one.

Most evil teaching # 3: Extortion

Verse 9:29:

“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

Here, Allah the Islamic God commands Muslims to attack and kill the so-called ‘people of the book’ (i.e. Jews and Christians), until they are defeated and submitted to the supremacy of Islam and, in willing humiliation, pay jizya (submission) tax to Muslims. Like verse 9:5, 9:29 is a call to mass murder and extermination. Only Hitler had openly instructed his followers to exterminate the Jews so completely. When such a teaching is presented as a teaching of the Creator of the Universe, it becomes extremely evil.

Most evil teaching # 4: Verse 5:33 – verse of barbaric cruelty

In order to portray Islam as a wonderful religion, Muslim taqqiyah tacticians, including President Obama, will always quote the verse 5:32, which says, “We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

This verse, as ridiculous as it is, says Allah, was decreed upon the Children of Israel, not Muslims. The verse that applies to Muslims is the next one – verse 5:33, a verse of barbaric cruelty – which these deceptive apologists of Islam would never quote. Verse 5:33 says:

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;”

Teachings as contained in this verse – “they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land” – are cruel and barbaric in nature. When those teachings are presented as God’s, it becomes extremely evil, no better than those Hitler had committed.

Most evil teaching # 5: Verse 65.4 — Allah’s teaching of pedophilia

Quran 65:4 says:

“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed divorce period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens) (give birth) and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.”

The most important duty of any species is the care and protection of its young. The prime duty of mankind is to raise children in a safe and caring environment, so they can progress into responsible adults. There is no worse crime than the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. But verse 65:4 clearly approves marriages and sexual copulation with pre-pubescent little girls, who haven’t started menstruating yet. And Muhammad at the age of 50 duly complied with this sanction of Allah by marrying his niece Aisha, only 6 years old.

This is an extremely evil teaching. Allah is a pedophile monster.

Most evil teaching # 6: Verse 33:50 – sanctioning unrestrained slavery and rape for Muhammad by his Allah

Verse 33.50 says:

“O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those [slaves] whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her – specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”.

The term “possessions of the right hand” mean slaves. It is expressly stated that Muhammad’s slaves, which he attained as a share of the captives in raiding infidels communities, were actually given to him by Allah Himself. And Allah also makes raping them halal for Muhammad (and his Muslim followers).

The verse also gives a special privilege to Muhammad to marry as many wives as he desires, beyond the restriction of four wives for ordinary Muslims.

When God’s teachings encourage a people to wage wars to capture the women for raping as well as encourages His holy prophet to engage in unrestrained marriage for sexual gratification, there can’t be a teaching as evil as this in such matters.

Most evil teaching # 7: Quran’s Sanction of Wife Beating

Quran 4:34:

“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

A Muslim woman is the property of her husband. A Muslim husband has the legal right and religious obligation to beat a wife if she disobeys him, is disloyal to him or simply does not please him. The concept of wife abuse does not exist in Islam. There is no concept of martial rape. A Muslim woman cannot refuse sex with her husband. According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:

  1. She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (i.e. “let’s herself go”)

  2. She refuses to meet his sexual demands

  3. She leaves the house without his permission or a “legitimate reason”

  4. She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce. These are evil affronts to the idea of equality and dignity of women – very evil teachings, indeed.

Most evil teaching # 8: Allah takes a shares of plundered booty

Quran 8:41

“And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah, – and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer, – if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing, – the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.”

This verse was revealed about how the booty captured in wars – such as after attacking and mass-slaughtering the Jews of Banu Quraiza – would be distributed. And most horribly the Islamic Allah Himself claims a share of the booty along with His prophet. God is the Creator of everything in the Universe. When that God encourages some people to attack and mass-murder others, so He Himself can take a share from the wealth captured from those murder people – no evil can get higher than this.

Most evil teaching # 9: Verse 24:2 – Allah is a barbarian

Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes

Quran 24:2 says:

“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, — flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”

This verse says that Muslims must not have mercy on people, who commit adultery or fornication, and punish them brutally with 100 lashes in public. However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non-Muslim woman is not considered adultery or fornication and would not be punished as the woman would be considered God-given concubine.

What kind of person could flog a woman 100 times for having sex with the man she loves? On the other hand, Islamic God, evil as He is, allows men to force sex upon their unwilling wives (verse 4:34). Undoubtedly the God of Islam is out and out barbaric to sanction evil teachings such as these.

Most evil teaching # 10: Teachings of torture, enslavement, beheading cruelty, eye-for-eye …..

There are 3,990 teachings of the Quran that are all evil. Only a few listed below under # 10 evil teachings.


Quran 22:19-22: “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”


Quran 2.178: “O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.”

You kill one of my slaves, females or free man and I’ll kill one of your slaves, females or free man.


Quran 5:38: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done-a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise.” 39 “But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.”


Quran 5:45: “And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed such as wrong-doers.”


Quran 8.12: “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.”

There are 75 teachings of beheading in Quran.


Quran-8:67: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia.)

The Quran is a mine of most evil teachings human history has ever seen. Islam is out and out Evil in the Name of God. How long shall the innocent continue to be deluded and misled? How long shall such nefarious teachings sway the millions and result in bloodshed of the innocent? How long shall this strife continue that is generated by these evil teachings?

Why This Perpetual War Between Israel & Muslims

As ordained by Allah through his Quran, Kafirs ( unbelievers  as per the dictates of Mohammed)  have to be exterminated. And these Kafirs include Jews, Hindus, Christians – in fact allo who do not subscribe to Mohammed. Islam, under the guise of a religion, is a political tool for making the Kafir race become history, leaving the Muslim race to inherit the earth exclusively. What better policy than to select one opponent at a time, and then having finished him, take up the fight with the other. However the sniping continues. The Hindus in India and Bangladesh, Christians in Nigeria and Egypt have been bearing the brunt.This is war, a total but undeclared war and in this war use of fiorce, tayyiya, sitr and all modes are permissible.


Allah, the Muslim God, has divided the human species into two races: Muslim and Kafir.

MUSLIM RACE: The Muslim Race only includes believers in Allah and his messenger. Muslims are the superior race in all aspects. Allah divides all nations into one of two major categories: Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule).

  • Q 49:10 The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two contending brothers; and fear Allah.

  • Q 49:11 O ye who believe! Let not some men among you deride others: Nor let some women deride others; perchance they may be better than they. Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by offensive names: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, to be used of one after he has believed.

The Muslim race must be harsh with the kafir race while having love only among themselves.

Q 48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves… that He {Allah} may enrage the disbelievers with the sight of them {the believers}.

Member of the Muslim race are guaranteed accession to an eternal virgin-filled paradise by shedding the blood of the kafir.

In Islam, the murder of kafirs by Muslims is a divine holy acts sanctioned by Allah, which opens to Muslims the door of Allah’s brothel-like Paradise.

Q 9:111: “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.”

KAFIR RACE: The Kafir race is a vile sub-human species with no humanity. They can be murdered, tortured, terrorized, enslaved, raped and are made up of non-believers in Allah and his messenger. Iran’s revolutionary leader Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini once declared that “the following eleven are unclean: first urine, second feces, third semen, fourth corpses, fifth blood, sixth dogs, seventh pigs, eighth non-Muslims, ninth wine, tenth beer, and eleventh the sweat of a camel which has consumed impure food.” Khomeini had gone on to add, “every aspect of a non-Muslimis unclean.

Says Egyptian born British cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri:

Killing a Kafir who is fighting you is OK. Killing a Kafir for any reason, you can say, it is OK – even if there is no reason for it. You can poison, ambush and kill non-believers. You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it.

Kafirs are generally divided into two main groups, Dhimmis and Harbis. A Dhimmi is a Kafir who pays the Jizya (protection tax) and accepts the supremacy of Islam while given permission to live and practice his religion (only Judaism and Christianity) under strict rules. A Harbi is either 1) a Christian or Jew not willing to accept Islam or live as a dhimmi paying the jizya tax, or 2) a person from any non-Abrahamic faith or no faith at all, unwilling to convert to Islam. Harbis are transgressors on Allah’s earth and therefore open enemies to the Muslims who are sanctioned by the Quran to strive against such individuals until religion is only for Islam.

According to the Quran, Kafirs are Najis, meaning dirty or unclean.

Q 9:28 O you who believe! The pagans are nothing but (najis) unclean, so they shall not approach the sacred Mosque…Allah not only refers to an entire group of humanity as unclean but forbids them from entering Islamic places of worship.


Following are a list of hate-crimes that Islam permits Muslims to commit against the Kafirs.


Allah commands Muslims to behead the Kafir or take them as prisoners for ransom in battle. This command is, in fact, Allah’s mercy to Muslims so as to test their faith, Allah promises that should a believer be killed in battle, his deeds will be of highest virtue worth straight landing in Islamic Paradise.

  • Q 47:4 When you meet the kafir in battle, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make them prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favour or ransom them until the war terminates. Thus are you commanded. But if it had been Allah’s will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them Himself; but He lets you fight in order to test you. Those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.

  • Q 8:12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.


  • Q 9:5: “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.”

  • Q 22:19-22: “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”

The message of verses 9:5 & 22:19-22 are: Should the pagan Kafirs readily convert to Islam and openly keep up prayers and other Islamic rituals, they must summarily murdered.


“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

This verses sanctifies the attacking and killing of the so-called ‘people of the book’ (i.e. Jews and Christians), until they are defeated and submitted to the supremacy of Islam and in willing humiliation, pay jizya (submission) tax to Muslims. Verse 9:29 is a divine call to mass-murder and extermination of the Jews and Christians, like verse 9:5 is for the Pagans. Only Hitler instructed his followers to exterminate the Jews so completely.

Bukhari 4:52:177: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”‘


Q 8:67: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

It means: Allah insisted on the Prophet to kill all the prisoners, who surrendered to him.


Those of the Kafir race living under Islamic rule may be liable to death sentence for the following actions (p. 609, o11.10 (1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;

(2) conceal spies of hostile forces;

(3) lead a Muslim away from Islam;

(4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money.


Following are some of the legalized rules of Jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions:

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. Muslim men can murder their slaves.

(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, did this. This is rape.

(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. All those killed in Jihad are acts of Murder.  To kill in the name of God is murder.

(4)    Old men and monks could be killed.

(5)    A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. When he refused to reveal the location of the city wealth he was taken and murdered by beheading.

(6)    Threat of Murder to force conversions. Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.

(7) Civilian property may be confiscated.

(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.

(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.

(10)  Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.

(11)  As already shown –  People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ orzakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. Refusal or future failure to pay this tax meant your murder. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad, divinely sanctioned by Allah, is aggressive, coercive, and murderous.


  • Q 33.27 And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things

  • Q 8:1 “They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: ‘The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.’”


  • Q 3:151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

  • Q 8:60 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 Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

  • Q 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides…their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”


  • Q 9:123O 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

  • Q 9:73 Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell…


  • Q 9:33. – “It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).”

  • 2:193 (or 2:189): “… Fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left.”

  • 3:19 (or 3:17):- “The only religion approved by Allah is Islam.  Ironically, those who have received the scripture are the ones who dispute this fact, despite the knowledge they have received, due to jealousy.  For such rejectors of Allah’s revelations, Allah is most strict in reckoning.”

  • 3:85 – “Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers”

  • 48:16 – “…Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall profess Islam. …”

  • Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196)

So, Muslims must “do battle” with the kafirs until every human being on earth professes Islam. There must be victory over all the kafir nations and Islam becomes supreme and the only religion on the face of the earth.

We must bear in mind that Islam has sanctioned many other tools – slavery, sex-slavery, racism etc. – so as to effect the extinction of the Kafir race, with Muslims remaining the only race to live on the earth. And the inept attitude, coupled with suicidal politically correct attitude is making the task much easier.

The Quran and Hadith against Human Rights ?

Muslim countries have signed to the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, but have summarily failed in delivering it to its non-Muslim populations as well as women. Well, how could the spurn the holy commands of Allah, and sacred examples of Muhammad in order to uphold the UN Human Rights Charter.

The Koran, the holy book of Muslims, and Hadith (fatwas of the prophet Muhammad) contain numerous passages that are incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights to which, by the way, all Muslim states have officially subscribed.

One might argue that the Bible and the Old Testament of both Christians and Jews also contain atrocious passages that go against human rights. However, while Christians and Jews ignore these atrocious passages and look at them in a historical context, Muslim believers, especially radical Muslims, do not. They are convinced that both the Koran and Hadith are sacred scriptures; the word of Allah and must be followed and implemented to the letter. Suicide and car bombers are a clear case in point. Many Muslims believe that Sharia (which includes both the Koran and Hadith) must be introduced and applied all over the world as the only best law for all human beings.

Here are some examples which clearly show that Islam is diametrically opposed to universal human rights.

While Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights prescribes: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief ….” the Koran prescribes the opposite. It says about freedom of thought, conscience and religion:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom them. That is the command. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them, but He ordered armed struggle to test some of you by means of others.”(Sura 47, verse 4)

Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

And what does the Koran say about freedom of religion and about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).

While the UN Declaration of Human Rights condemns in Article 2 any discrimination based on sex by saying, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,” the Koran calls for discrimination against women. It says:

Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).

And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).

Men are allowed to beat women:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34)

According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man:

O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).

As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Koran. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes:

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).

During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Koran says:

It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (Sura 2, verse 222).

According to the Koran women are, in general, unclean creatures. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.

O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).

In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:

They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

The Hadith is also full with passages that brazenly discriminate against women and followers of other faiths. Here are some of these passages:

Women are deficient in intelligence and religion:

“The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” (Book #6, Hadith #301)

Women who pass by a praying man annul his prayer:

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a Woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.” (Book #9, Hadith #493)

A Jew also annuls the prayers of a man:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw. (Book #2, Hadith #0704)

Prophet Muhammad discriminates even against black dogs:

Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil. (Book #004, Hadith #1032)

While Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights stresses, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement,” women in Islam are not allowed to travel alone:

(38) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet said, “A Woman should not travel for more than three days except with a Dhi-Mahram (i.e. a male with whom she cannot marry at all, e.g. her brother, father, grandfather, etc.) or her own husband.)” (Book #20, Hadith #192)

(40) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “It is not permissible for a Woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram.” (Book #20, Hadith #194)

Women are not allowed to mourn as long they want. Why only four months and ten days? Only Allah knows:

(49) Narrated Zainab bint Abi Salama: When the news of the death of Abu Sufyan reached from Sham, Um Habiba on the third day, asked for a yellow perfume and scented her cheeks and forearms and said, “No doubt, I would not have been in need of this, had I not heard the Prophet saying: “It is not legal for a Woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to mourn for more than three days for any dead person except her husband, for whom she should mourn for four months and ten days.” (Book #23, Hadith #370)

Non-Muslims are also subjugated to the “law” of Sharia:

(54) Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar : The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a Woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.” (Book #23, Hadith #413)

A woman is allowed to fast only with permission from her husband:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: No woman should observe fast when her spouse is present (in the house) but with his permission. And she should not admit any (mahram) in his house, while he (her husband) is present, but with his permission. And whatever she spends from his earnings without his sanction, for him is half the reward. (Book #005, Hadith #2238)

As a man, if you see an alien woman, rush immediately to your wife and have intercourse with her to repel the devil in that woman:

Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart. (Book #008, Hadith #3240)

Jabir heard Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) say: When a woman fascinates any one of you and she captivates his heart, he should go to his wife and have an intercourse with her, for it would repel what he feels. (Book #008, Hadith #3242)

Women are solely for beauty, status, and believers. Their brains are insignificant:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A woman may be married for four reasons: for her property, her status. her beauty and her religion, so try to get one who is religious, may your hand be besmeared with dust. (Book #008, Hadith #3457)

Women are crooks and useless creatures:

AbuHuraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone you would benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her. A hadith like this is reported by another chain of narrators. (Book #008, Hadith #3466)

A woman who commits adultery must be stoned to death. She sacrifices her life for Allah:

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah’s Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death. He then prayed over her (dead body). Thereupon Umar said to him: Allah’s Apostle, you offer prayer for her, whereas she had committed adultery! Thereupon he said: She has made such a repentance that if it were to be divided among seventy men of Medina, it would be enough. Have you found any repentance better than this that she sacr ficed her life for Allah, the Majestic? (Book #017, Hadith #4207)

Women are simply bad luck, bad omen:

‘Umar b. Muhammad b. Zaid reported that he heard his father narrating from Ibn ‘Umar that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said. If bad luck is a fact, then it is in the horse, the woman and the house. (Book #026, Hadith #5526)

Narrated Sa’d ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no hamah, no infection and no evil omen; if there is in anything an evil omen, it is a house, a horse, and a woman. (Book #29, Hadith #3911)

Women are breeding machines:

Narrated Ma’qil ibn Yasar: A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you. (Book #11, Hadith #2045)

A woman is an unavoidable evil, and marrying a woman is like buying a slave:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: “O Allah, I ask Thee for the good in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her; I take refuge in Thee from the evil in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her.” When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing. (Book #11, Hadith #2155)

If you incite a slave against their master, you are not a good Muslim:

Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us. (Book #12, Hadith #2170)

While Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights stresses that men and women “are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution,” Islam makes it difficult for women to divorce:

Narrated Thawban: The Prophet (peace be_upon_him) said: If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odour of Paradise will be forbidden to her. (Book #12, Hadith #2218)

If you want to free a slave, free first the men, then the women:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Al-Qasim said: Aisha intended to set free two slaves of her who were spouses. She, therefore, asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) about this matter. He commanded to begin with the man before the woman. The narrator Nasr said: AbuAli al-Hanafi reported it to me on the authority of Ubaydullah. (Book #12, Hadith#2229)

Forced marriage and forced divorce:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: A woman embraced Islam during the time of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him); she then married. Her (former) husband then came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah, I have already embraced Islam, and she had the knowledge about my Islam. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) took her away from her latter husband and restored her to her former husband. (Book #12, Hadith #2231)

The son of a slave woman consummated by a free man is not allowed to inherit anything:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) decided regarding one who was treated as a member of a family after the death of his father, to whom he was attributed when the heirs said he was one of them, that if he was the child of a slave-woman whom the father owned when he had intercourse with her, he was included among those who sought his inclusion, but received none of the inheritance which was previously divided; he, however, received his portion of the inheritance which had not already been divided; but if the father to whom he was attributed had disowned him, he was not joined to the heirs. If he was a child of a slave-woman whom the father did not possess or of a free woman with whom he had illicit intercourse, he was not joined to the heirs and did not inherit even if the one to whom he was attributed is the one who claimed paternity, since he was a child of fornication whether his mother was free or a slave. (Book #12, Hadith #2258)

A woman whose husband dies must not use any make-up, neither dress up as she pleases. The same does not apply to the man:

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A woman whose husband has died must not wear clothes dyed with safflower (usfur) or with red ochre (mishq) and ornaments. She must not apply henna and collyrium. (Book #12, Hadith #2297)

Islam is against human rights not only in theory, but also in practice under the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, under Hamas in Gaza, under Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, Egypt, in the Arab Gulf states, Sudan, Somalia, and Morocco.

After all the above blatant evidence, President Obama and apologists across the globe still believe that Islam is a tolerant “religion.” On the contrary, Islam is a fanatic, stone-age “religion.


Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

Concept of “Islamic State”

“An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.” This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

  1. An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
  2. Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policy making.
  3. An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they“become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are theMalikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

  1. Qur’an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.
  2. Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.
  3. Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.
  4. Ijma’ (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.

Textual laws prescribed in the Qur’an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:

In his article, “The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State,” Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

  • Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
  • People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
  • Musta’min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta’min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta’min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.
Islamic Law and Zimmis

Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.

The Jizya (tribute)

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.


Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizyacan only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

“…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”

Zimmis and Religious Practices

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk(polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
  1. Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
  2. Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
  3. Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
  4. Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
  5. Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
  6. Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:

“In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”

Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,

“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).

Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”

In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.

Marriage and Children

A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.

Capital Punishment

The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmiintentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.

The Witness of Zimmis

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmihas falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed byZimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmiwhose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a“By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.

Personal Law

On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.

Political Rights and Duties

The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,

“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”

Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,

“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”

These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.

Business World

The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet(Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.

Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”

In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.

`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked:“Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:

Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.

Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that aZimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.

Freedom of Expression

Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:

“all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”

Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.

Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.

Muslims and Zimmis

Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

I. The Forbidden:

A Muslim is not allowed to:

  1. emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.

  2. attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.

  3. lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.

  4. work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.

  5. make any endowment to churches or temples.

  6. carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.

  7. address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”

II. The Allowable

A Muslim is allowed to:

  1. financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.

  2. give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.

  3. eat food prepared by the People of the Book.

  4. console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.

  5. congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’ faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”


This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for you to ponder.

Identities of Muslim Brotherhood Operatives in U.S.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal in America:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.
And this goal needs operators< There are p;lenty of them as revealed by El Watan.
El Watan, one of Egypt’s most widely circulated and read newspapers, has published a report discussing the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence over the United States, especially in the context of inciting pro-Brotherhood policies against Egypt’s popular June 30 Revolution, which resulted in the ousting of Muhammad Morsi and the Brotherhood from power.Titled (in translation), “With Names, Identities, and Roadmap…  El Watan Exposes Brotherhood Cells in America,” it’s written by investigative journalist Ahmed al-Tahiri, who begins the report by saying:

In the context of El Watan’s ongoing investigation concerning the Brotherhood’s cells and lobby inside America that support the regime of the ousted [Morsi], and which intensified their activities to attack and defame the June 30 Revolution, informed sources have disclosed to El Watan newspaper the names and cell entities of the Brotherhood and their roadmap of activities all throughout the United States of America.

The sources said that these organizations, which are spread throughout the States, agitated for and were supportive of the decisions taken by Muhammad Morsi’s project to “Brotherhoodize” and consolidate power [in Egypt] and gave a favorable opinion to the general American public that Morsi’s decisions were welcomed by the public [in Egypt]. Following the June 30 Revolution, these groups  launched a malicious war in order to incite the American administration to take hostile decisions against Egypt, with the aim of bringing back the Brotherhood to the power.

El Watan then goes on to name names, saying that the following activists and entities are Brotherhood operatives working within the United States (reproduced verbatim):

  • Union of Egyptian Imams in North America, represented by Sheikh Muhammad al-Bani
  • The Egyptian American Foundation for Development
  • Dr. Khalid Lamada, New York
  • Dr. Hassan al-Sayah, Virginia
  • The Egyptian Network in America, led by Dr. Muhammad Helmi
  • Dr. Akram al-Zand, Sa’ad Foundation
  • Muhammad al-Khashab, Head of ART channelsin America
  • Sameh al-Henawi, member, Business Association of America
  • Dr. Hany Saqr, member, Egyptian Association in America
  • Dr. Khalid Hassan, Maryland
  • Dr. Muhammad Abdel Hakem, Seattle
  • Dr. Ahmed Ismat al-Bendari, President, Islamic Society of America
  • Walid Yusari, Chicago
  • Ahmed Shadid, New Jersey
  • Ahmed al-Hatab, Indiana
  • Dr. Muhammad Morjan, Boston
  • Ramadan Ridwan, Houston
  • Ahmed Fayez, Las Vegas
  • Dr. Amru Abbas, member, Egyptian Foundation in Michigan
  • Dr. Safi al-Din Hamed, Pennsylvania
  • Dr. Hamdy Radwan, North Carolina
  • Ahmed Shehata, Director, Egyptian American Organization for Democracy and Human Rights
  • Dr. Iman Shehata, New York
  • Dr. Muhammad Amru Attawiya, member, Organization of Islamic Relief in the United States
  • Dr. Khalid al-Sayes, member, Rebuilding of Egypt Foundation
  • Dr. Tariq Hussein, member, American Islamic Relations Council (CAIR)
  • Dr Hisham al-Gayar, member, Egyptian Foundation, Michigan
  • Amin Mahmoud, Maryland

As a most recent example, El Watan quotes from an American op-ed published on October 16 (just two days before the publication of the El Watan report itself).  Titled “Egypt: 100 days later” and written by Ahmed Shehata of the Egyptian American Organization for Democracy and Human Rights, the piece appeared in The Hill, the Capitol’s most widely circulated newspaper, published specifically for Congress.

The op-ed is certainly a prime example of pro-Muslim Brotherhood propaganda that actually tries to “shame” U.S. policymakers into returning the Brotherhood back to power in the name of “democracy.” 

Key excerpts follow:

While the U.S. must consider its own interests in the region, it is baffling and disheartening to think the current administration would choose to discount the suffering that continues to occur on a daily basis as well as the complete violation of democratic principles which it espouses to the rest of the world….  As this past week marked 100 days since the coup and the lives of the Egyptian people continue to be sacrificed, the United States cannot be silent any longer for the sake of their own interests and convenience….  To that end, Egypt represents a golden opportunity for the U.S. to uphold democratic values by pushing for the reinstatement of the democratically elected government, despite their shortcomings. This would aid tremendously in showing the world that, above any one particular physical interest, stands the mantle of freedom and the rule of law.

Anyone familiar with the real happenings of Egypt knows that Shehata’s assertions are complete opposites of the truth: the military ousted the Brotherhood in response to the will of millions of Egyptians — the people, the demos, as in democracy — who took to the streets protesting against the totalitarian Morsi government.  Moreover, it is the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters who have been committing numerous human rights atrocities — including the slaughter and persecution of Christians, the torture and murder of many Egyptians (including before the revolution), and the destruction and torching of some 85 Christian churches.

Shehata seems to think that if the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters terrorize, murder, destroy, persecute, and betray their nation — which is precisely why tens of millions of average Egyptians rose up against them (though you might not know that following Al Jazeera-led Western media that distorted the popularity of the revolution) — as long as they won “elections” (which from the start many authorities insisted they didn’t), then that is all that matters; and, if need be, the U.S. must war with Egypt’s military and people on behalf of the ousted terrorists — all in the name of “democracy” and “human rights,” as Shehata’s U.S.-based Brotherhood front is laughably called.

That such a shameless piece of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda can be published in the most influential and widely read Capitol Hill publication certainly goes a long way in validating El Watan‘s claims that the Brotherhood has its tentacles all around the United States’ points of influence.

Honour Killing- Indian & Pakistani Style

Honour killings have been a subject of news and are a predominant aspect of South Asian culture. However there is a distinct difference in honour killing – which are in fact, a dishonourable killing, a premeditated murder- in India and Pakistan.

Although the overwhelming majority of honour killings worldwide occur within Muslim communities,one would not know this by reading the mainstream media. Fearful of being labelled “Islamophobic,” the American press has given only glancing attention to the widespread, honour-related ritual murder of Muslim women in the Middle East and South Asia while treating periodic honour killings among Muslim immigrants in the West as ordinary domestic abuse cases.

Over the last few years, however, the media has published a flurry of articles about Hindu honour killings in India, the only non-Muslim-majority country where these murders are still rampant.

Apologists for Muslim culture and civilization rushed to herald the upsurge in Hindu (and Sikh) honour killings as evidence that the practice is “a universal problem, not an Islamic issue.”

While India is indeed a striking exception to Islam’s near monopoly on contemporary honour killings, the following preliminary statistical survey shows Hindu honour killings in India to be different in form and commission from those of Muslims in neighbouring Pakistan. Though no less gruesome, the Hindu honour killings seem largely confined to the north of India and are perpetuated by sociocultural factors largely specific to India. The millions of Indian Hindus who have immigrated to the West do not bring the practice along with them.

The recent spike of honour killings in India is likely the product of a clash between traditional and modern values, intensified by high economic growth and increasing social mobility. The spike may also reflect growing media coverage of this crime. The democratically elected government of India has taken important, if long overdue, steps to combat the practice of honour killing, and some progress has been made.

Not so in Pakistan where officials at all levels of government are either unable or unwilling to cope with honour killings. For Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, which have yet to experience the social stresses of rapid modernization or build the kind of political institutions that can eradicate a practice so deeply rooted in traditional beliefs—especially as Islamists now dominate—the worst may be yet to come.

The Social Milieu

Honour killing is the premeditated murder of a relative (usually a young woman) who has allegedly impugned the honour of her family. It tends to predominate in societies where individual rights are circumscribed by communal solidarity, patriarchal authority structures, and intolerant religious and tribal beliefs. Under such conditions, control over marriage and reproduction is critical to the socioeconomic status of kinship groups and the regulation of female behaviour is integral to perceptions of honour, known as maryada in many Indian languages and as ghairat in Urdu and Pashto.

In such an environment, a woman who refuses to enter into an arranged marriage, seeks a divorce, or fails to avoid suspicion of immoral behavior will be viewed by her family as having dishonoured them so grievously that her male relatives will be ostracized and her siblings will have trouble finding suitable spouses. Killing her is the only way the family can restore its honour, regardless of whether she actually is or can be proven guilty of the alleged offense. In sharp contrast to other forms of domestic violence, honour killings are frequently performed out in the open, and the perpetrators rarely act alone. Unni Wikan, a social anthropologist and professor at the University of Oslo, observed that an honour killer typically commits the murder “as a commission from the extended family.”

The lead author of this article documented this in 2009 and 2010 for honour killings both in the West and in Muslim-majority countries.

Though neither Islam nor Hinduism directly sanctions honour killing, both play a role in legitimizing the practice in South Asia—if for no other reason than that such societies have not prosecuted this crime, have issued light sentences, or have failed to use their religious authority to punish and abolish it. Hindu society is divided into religiously mandated castes, membership in which is hereditary and effectively permanent. At the lowest rung of the ladder are roughly 150 million Indians who are called Dalits (the oppressed), commonly known in the West as “untouchables.” Although many Dalits have reached high political office, notably former president K. R. Narayanan, they are still held in low regard by many other Indians.

According to Hindu religious law and tradition, marrying or having sexual relations with a member of a different caste is strictly forbidden. So, too, is romantic involvement with someone from the same sub-caste (gotra), a proscription that contrasts notably with Muslim cultures where first cousin marriage is widely accepted. The vast majority of Hindu honour killings target young Indians suspected of violating one of these two commandments. In northern India, the murders are often explicitly sanctioned or even mandated by caste-based councils known as khap panchayats. Although the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 made inter-caste and intra-gotra marriages legal, both remain unacceptable to the large majority of Indian Hindus. According to a 2006 survey, 76 percent of the Indian public oppose inter-caste marriage. In some areas of the country, any marriage not arranged by the family is widely regarded as taboo. “Love marriages are dirty … only whores can choose their partners,” one council leader told an Indian reporter.

Although Islam does not specifically endorse killing female family members, some honour killings involve allegations of adultery or apostasy, which are punishable by death under Shari’a (Islamic law). Thus, the belief that women who stray from the path can be rightly murdered is consistent with such Islamic teachings. The refusal of most Islamic authorities to unambiguously denounce the practice (as opposed to merely denying that Islam sanctions it) only encourages would-be honour killers.

While the Qur’an preaches the equality of all Muslims (or at least all Muslim males), and Islamic leaders frequently bemoan the evils of India’s caste system, vestiges of caste identification are evident among some Pakistani Muslims, who are descended from Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam in the Middle Ages and were part of India before 1947.

Empirical Trends

It is difficult to accurately estimate the number of honour killings that take place in Pakistan and India as the vast majority are believed to go unreported. In 2010, there were roughly 900 reported honour killings in the northern Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh alone while 100-300 additional honour killings took place in the rest of the country. Also in 2010, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 800 women were killed for honour in Pakistan. Both figures likely represent only the tip of the iceberg. According to the Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani human rights organization: “At least 675 Pakistani women and girls were murdered during the first nine months of the calendar year 2011 for allegedly defaming their family’s honour.” Almost 77 percent of such honour cases ended in acquittals.] A similar study, published in 2011 by the Research and Development for Human Resources Women Rights Cell, found that 605 women and 115 men in Sindh were honour murdered or murdered in domestic disputes that same year.

In order to compare and contrast honour killings in India and Pakistan, a sample was taken of 75 Hindu honour killings in India, including 50 cases that were specifically caste-based and 25 where the motive was not clearly specific to caste. The Indian cases were compared to 50 Muslim honour killings in Pakistan and 39 Pakistani Muslim honour killings in the West. Hindu honour killings in the West have been too rare to allow for valid statistical comparisons. The researchers relied on English language media reports for data, selecting the first cases that met the criteria of being a Hindu or Muslim honour killing and about which most of the following seven variables were known: location/religion; gender of victim; motive; the presence or absence of torture; age; number of victims per incident; and whether it was the woman’s or the man’s family who committed the killing.

The average age of all of the victims in this study, both male and female, was 22, with no statistically significant differences among the groups. Overwhelmingly, it was the women’s families that committed the honour killings even in cases in which there were male victims. In India, 94 percent of the killings were carried out by the woman’s family of origin. Four percent were killed jointly by both the man’s and the woman’s families of origin; in one case it was the allegedly shamed husband of a woman who did the killing; in no cases was it just the man’s family of origin. In Pakistan, the woman’s family of origin was responsible for 78 percent of the killings while husbands of “adulterous” wives accounted for another 16 percent. In 3 cases (6 percent) it was the man’s family of origin that committed the murder. The number of husbands who were killers was highest in Pakistan because a large percentage of the Pakistani victims (30 percent) had been accused of adultery. Among Pakistani Muslims in the West, 97 percent of the killings were by the woman’s family. This is to be expected, as it is women who are considered the keepers of male and family honour and responsibility to enforce society’s honour code falls on the women’s families.

A number of statistically significant differences are notable.

Gender of Victims. In 40 percent of the cases, Indian Hindus murdered men while Pakistani Muslims murdered men only 14 percent of the time in Pakistan and 15 percent of the time in the West. The higher percentage of male victims in India underscores the fact that Hindu honour killings are more often about caste purity than sexual purity. While sexual purity is traditionally a female responsibility, the religious mandate to maintain strict boundaries between castes is an obligation for all Hindus, both male and female.

Motivation. The reported motivations underlying the killings varied significantly across the three groups. The researchers identified four major motives among Indian Hindus: caste-specific motives, “immoral character,” “contamination by association,” and non-caste-specific illicit relationships, which included interfaith relationships, adultery, pregnancy out of wedlock, and illicit relationships that were considered shameful for unspecified reasons. “Contamination by association” victims were killed not because they had done anything wrong but because of their association with the guilty party (mostly children of mothers who had been accused of violating sexual norms).

“Immoral character” victims were considered rebellious or licentious but were not suspected of being romantically involved with a specific individual. For example, Pakistani-Canadian Aqsa Parvez was lured to death by her mother and murdered by her father because she did not wear a hijab (head covering). A 14-year-old Indian girl, S. Rajinilatha, was murdered by her father not because she was involved with any particular man but merely because she wrote love poetry. Meena, an 18-year-old Hindu girl, was shot to death because she left her village for three days, and her family was not satisfied with her explanation of where she had been.

In the case of Pakistani Muslims, the researchers identified three motives: illicit relationships, “contamination by association,” and “immoral character.” Only 4 percent of Muslim victims in Pakistan were killed because they were romantically involved with someone from a different caste, and caste was never a motive among Pakistani Muslims in the West. Consequently, the motive in this small number of cases was classified simply as “illicit relationship.”

The reported motivations of Muslim honour killers in Pakistan differed from those of Pakistani Muslims in the West. In Pakistan, 12 percent of the victims were “immoral character” victims. In the West, 65 percent of the victims were “immoral character” victims. This may be because there are so many more opportunities for “immoral” assimilation/independence in the West, and young Pakistani women living there may be pushing boundaries more forcefully.

There were also significantly more “contamination by association” victims among Pakistani Muslims, both in Pakistan and in the West, than among the Hindus in India. For example, one Pakistani Muslim case in the West involved the murder of an adult sister-in-law, her young child, and a father-in-law who happened to be in the battered wife’s new home at the time. Only 4 percent of the Indian Hindus killed were “contamination by association” victims (n=3), compared to 22 percent of the Pakistani Muslim victims in Pakistan (n=11) and 19 percent of Pakistani Muslim victims in the West (n=7). The overwhelming majority of Hindu killings are caste-related, generally targeting young men and women shortly after they eloped and before they could have children. Pakistani Muslim honour killings are more often about obedience in general, especially sexual purity, and a woman’s sexual and moral purity can be challenged as long as she lives.

Torture. Some victims were killed in a manner clearly intended to maximize pain. For example, 17-year-old Anup Kumar of Haryana was electrocuted in 2011 for being in a relationship with a girl from the same sub-caste. In Islamabad, 40-year-old Elahi Husain’s brothers tied her to a tree and stoned her to death in 2007 for being in a relationship of which they disapproved.

The torture rate for Hindus in India (39 percent) was significantly higher than for Muslims in Pakistan (12 percent). Many of the Indian Hindu victims in this study were burned alive, electrocuted, or hacked to death. Even in cases where there was no torture, the bodies of the victims were often desecrated, grimly displaying the family’s determination to restore its honour at all costs. It is possible that the torture rate in Pakistan is comparable to that in India and that Pakistani police and media are more circumspect in revealing gruesome details.

Among Pakistani Muslim victims in the West, however, a staggering 59 percent were tortured. Perhaps this is because the perpetrators feel so besieged and humiliated by the surrounding culture that they must take more extreme measures to reclaim their honour and because so many Pakistani girls and women are tempted to assimilate.
Pakistan’s Actions on honour Killings

In Pakistan, the fusion of Islamic beliefs, a patriarchal social order, and tribal segmentation have effectively reduced women to the status of chattel. Pakistan was ranked 133 out of 135 countries in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Global Gender Gap report. A 2011 survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation ranked Pakistan as the third most dangerous country in the world for women (India was fourth).

According to Homa Arjomand, the Canadian lawyer who led the successful fight against the imposition of Shari’a law in Ontario, the lives of most girls and women in Pakistan are routinely terrible. They can expect that their husbands will rape and beat them savagely, often breaking their bones and knocking out their teeth; they may face extreme sadism during pregnancy as well as unhygienic and dangerous confinement as a permanent way of life; their families will not help them.

The summary execution of female relatives for a wide range of suspected moral infractions is considered justifiable by many Pakistanis. Tribal councils often sanction the practice while local police turn a blind eye. Because of this impunity, honour killing is sometimes used as a pretext for other crimes. For example, according to Muhammad Haroon Bahlkani, an officer in the Community Development Department in Sindh, Pakistan, a “man can murder another man for unrelated reasons, kill one of his own female relatives, and then credibly blame his first victim for dishonouring the second. Or he can simply kill one of his female relatives, accuse someone rich of involvement with her, and extract financial compensation in exchange for forgoing vengeance.” Bahlkani has a name for this: the “honour Killing Industry.”

In Pakistan, many honour killings are known as karo-kari killings, which literally means “black male” and “black female” in Urdu and refers to cases in which adulterers are killed together. However, according to Bahlkani, there is an escape clause, but only for the men who can run away, hide, or pay restitution. Women are confined to the home, and few people will shelter a female runaway.

Although senior Pakistani officials have frequently denounced the practice of honour killing, little of substance has been achieved in combating it. While the penal code was stiffened in 2005 to impose a 10-year minimum sentence for honour killing, legislative initiatives to protect women from domestic violence have been repeatedly watered down or abandoned in the face of Islamist opposition. In 2009, Pakistan’s National Assembly passed the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill, which strengthened legal protections against domestic violence for women and children. However, the Council of Islamic Ideology, a constitutional body charged with assessing whether laws are consistent with Islamic injunctions, issued a statement saying the bill “would fan unending family feuds and push up divorce rates.” After this, the bill was held up in the Pakistani senate and allowed to lapse. According to Special Public Prosecutor Nghat Dad, “The government’s attitude towards pushing for the cause has been hopeless ever since the Council of Islamic Ideology’s opposition.”

Under Shari’a-based provisions of Pakistan’s judicial system, murderers can buy a pardon by paying blood money (dyad) to the victim’s family. Since the family of honour killing victims are nearly always sympathetic to the honour killer as well as complicit to some degree, getting a pardon is usually just a formality. Women’s rights organizations in Pakistan have pressed parliament to disallow the practice of blood money in honour killing cases, but conservative Islamist groups have blocked the needed legislation.

Even when such arrangements do not take place, honour killers are rarely prosecuted for lack of cooperative witness testimony. For those few who happen to be convicted, a light prison sentence is far preferable to dishonour. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in a recent report: “The legal, preventative, and protective measures needed to provide effective protection to women against violence perpetrated in the name of honour remained absent.”
India’s Actions on honour Killings

Indian society at large is no less misogynistic than that of Pakistan. Since boys are preferred and girls are seen as a burden, an estimated four to twelve million selective abortions of girls have occurred in India in the past three decades. The 2011 Indian census found 914 girls for every 1,000 boys among children six or younger. Dowry burnings, the practice of a man and his mother dousing his wife with cooking oil and burning her alive so that a new bride and dowry can be obtained, are as big a problem as honour killings in India.

As the Indian media have fastidiously documented, there has been a marked increase in the number of reported honour killings in recent years. In 2010, a government-funded study on the prevalence of honour crimes in India found that they are most common in regions dominated by khap panchayats and increasingly involve inter-caste, rather than intra-sub-caste marriages. In these regions, local politicians turn a blind eye to the murders and resist efforts by the central government and parliament to deal with the problem while local police collude in honour killings or help cover them up, often mischaracterizing the murders as suicides. In 2011, theaters in Haryana refused to screen an Indian film on honour killings because of threats by khap panchayats.

Maybe, honour killings were less frequent in the past “because elopements didn’t happen … livelihood was so clearly tied to the land, and the land was so clearly enmeshed in these relationships.” Greater socioeconomic mobility has weakened these bonds. As khap panchayats struggle against modernization, preserving their traditional power means retaining control over reproduction, and they have resorted to violence to achieve this.

In sharp contrast to their Pakistani counterparts, Indian government officials have vigorously condemned honour killings in their country. So, too, have liberal Indian media outlets, some of which have done aggressive investigative reporting on the issue. In 2010, an undercover reporter working for the Indian television channel Headlines Today found two policemen from the northern state of Haryana who boasted about their willingness to hand over a young woman to be honour murdered. “Cut her into pieces and then throw her in some river,” one said. A number of Indian nongovernmental organizations are working to defend women from honour killings. The Love Commandos, with 2,000 volunteers and a 24-hour national hotline, are devoted to protecting newlyweds who defy their families.

In 2010, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ordered a cabinet-level commission to draft national legislation designed to eradicate honour killing. The proposals included an amendment to the penal code allowing khap panchayats leaders to be prosecuted for sanctioning murders as well as the revocation of the 30-day notice period required by the Special Marriage Act, which has enabled families to track down and preemptively kill the couples. In 2011, the Law Commission of India, under the Ministry of Law and Justice, drafted a new bill—The Endangerment of Life and Liberty (Protection, Prosecution and Other Measures) Act—designed to prevent khap panchayats from denouncing couples who violate caste restrictions. According to the bill:

It shall be unlawful for any group of persons to gather, assemble or congregate with the … intention to deliberate, declare on, or condemn any marriage or relationship such as marriage between two persons of majority age in the locality concerned on the basis that such conduct or relationship has dishonoured the caste or community or religion of all or some of the persons forming part of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.

The fate of this legislation is uncertain, however, as the khap panchayats’ control over local voting blocs has enabled them to blunt legislative reforms in the past. The government has made more progress on the judicial front. In 2010, India’s Supreme Court instructed the governments in Haryana and six other states to take steps to protect potential honour killing victims. In 2011, it decried honour killing as a “barbaric and shameful” practice that must be “ruthlessly stamped out.” The court also declared honour killings ordered by khap panchayats to be illegal and warned that government officials who fail to act against honour crime offenders will be prosecuted.

Although fear of caste ostracism makes it difficult to find cooperative witnesses, Indian courts have begun aggressively prosecuting honour killers and their accomplices. In 2010, a Haryana court sentenced five men to death for the honour murder of a young couple who had married despite being members of the same sub-caste while giving a life sentence to the head of the khap panchayat that ordered their deaths. In November 2011, an Indian court sentenced eight men to death and twenty others to life imprisonment for involvement in three honour killings. Increasingly, local police officials have been suspended and even arrested for collusion in honour killings.

India still has a long way to go. While the Indian government continues to face resistance and evasion of responsibility on the part of local officials, it has not encountered the same kind of virulent, often violent, opposition to women’s rights typical of Pakistani Islamists. There is little doubt that India is determined to win what promises to be a long battle against honour killing. The Western media’s interest in Hindu honour killings developed only after Indians themselves began exposing the practice and pressing for change.

Although Hindu honour killing is a gruesome and sordid affair, it differs in many important respects from honour killing in neighbouring Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Indian Hindus murder men for honour more often than do Pakistani Muslims, and they murder for reasons mainly related to concerns about caste purity.

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of Hindu honour killings is the fact that Indians abandon the horrific practice when they migrate to the West whereas many Pakistani Muslims carry it with them. Part of the explanation may lie in their different patterns of acculturation upon immigrating to the West. Young Hindus in the West are no less prone to violate traditional social codes than young Muslims, and their parents may be no less furious when they do, but Hindu families in the West do not feel the same degree of public humiliation and shame as they might experience back in India. They are eager to preserve their cultural identity but not at the expense of alienating their adoptive communities. The absence of dreaded khap panchayats no doubt mitigates the consequences of dishonour.

Due in part to the spread of radical Islamist ideology, Muslim immigrants in the West are either radicalized or socialize predominantly within Muslim-only communities, and their conception of honour reflects this. Even affluent young women of Pakistani descent in the West can face the credible threat of death or severe bodily harm. Actress Afshan Azad, who played Padma Patil in the Harry Potter film series, was beaten and threatened with death in 2010 by her Pakistani father and brother for dating a non-Muslim. If she can be victimized, anyone can.

While it is alarming that there are so many honour killings in India and Pakistan, there may yet be cause for hope. Every honour killing begins with a rebellion against tribalism and patriarchy—or with a fear that tribal and patriarchal values are under attack. Many of the victims in our study were people who believed that they could push traditional boundaries, that they could get away with asserting their rights. They were wrong, and they paid the ultimate price for that mistake, but the key is that they tried. More rebels will follow.

U.S. Government Shutdown Impacts Asia

Normally  the Americans tend not to see past their own noses. Right now, the government shutdown is big news. Naturally, coverage is focused on domestic concerns, such as the completely unnecessary park closures that expose the childishness and vindictive spirit of this administration.

However, there are larger ripple effects of this closure—even global ramifications—we need to pay attention to. After all, if Washington is internally paralyzed with inaction, how can it fulfill its international obligations as the world’s leading power? This is a question many leaders around the world are asking—some with concern, others with glee.

As Stratfor’s George Friedman wrote, if the nation “is both losing its internal cohesion and the capacity to govern … it would mean the United States would not be able to act in global affairs, and that in turn would mean that the international system would undergo a profound change” (October 8).

Consider what the shutdown means for Asia, particularly China, since it is the growth of China that is sending cold shivers down the spine of US mandarins. For years the balance of power in Asia has been shifting. American influence has faded; China’s has blossomed. America’s nervous Asian allies are increasingly reevaluating their dependence on the U.S. and looking for alternatives. China is doing all it can to step into that gap. It is positioning itself, quite successfully, as the powerhouse of Asia. And it views Washington’s childish infighting as a golden opportunity.

Because of the government stoppage, President Obama has canceled visits with four Asian countries and missed two regional summits. In addition, an American-Japanese military exercise scheduled for later this month in Japan was nixed. (A spokesman for Japan’s defense ministry said, “If cancellations continue on other events, the impact would be substantial.”)

This all plays beautifully into China’s hands. It validates the concerns of those who fear America’s shrinking power, particularly within Asia. As Joseph de Courcy, reporting on this trend, wrote, “The credibility of the U.S.’s pivot to Asia, like the credibility of its Middle East policies, is being openly questioned. Even the economic element of the U.S.’s Asia pivot is looking unconvincing” (Courcy’s Intelligence Brief, October 9).

As American dependability looks shakier, China looks like the picture of stability. After President Obama dropped out from the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit and the East Asia Summit, Carl Thayer, professor at the Australian Defense Force Academy, said, “For countries not closely allied with the U.S., Obama’s no-show will reinforce their policy of bandwagoning with China.”

The timing of these events was even more damaging for having occurred alongside another stunning demonstration of America’s weakness: its desperate acceptance of Russia’s highly dubious and calculated offer to take care of Syria’s chemical weapons. Here the United States deferred to another Asian power in order to avoid having to take action internationally.

Meanwhile, as President Obama conspicuously canceled his trip to Asia, China was active in his absence. As Courcy reported, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, announced $30 billion worth of deals with Indonesia. He declared a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Malaysia, including enhanced military ties. The Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, publicly noted the success of the “golden decade” of China’s partnership with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—during which bilateral trade has increased fivefold, from $80 billion to $400 billion. He announced that China’s aim was to increase that number to $1 trillion by 2020.

Then, for good measure, Beijing took a warning shot at the U.S. On Tuesday, China’s vice foreign minister, Zhu Guangyao, said flatly that “the clock is ticking,” and the U.S. had better resolve its political disputes in order to prevent a debt default. Why? It’s America’s responsibility “to ensure the safety of Chinese investments in the United States,” he said. Remember, China is America’s biggest creditor—it is estimated to hold at least $1.3 trillion in U.S. bonds. It possesses substantially more leverage over the U.S. than the other way around. And now the U.S. is simply handing China more reasons to gloat.

From its position of weakness, America’s strategy to contain China is essentially built around its alliance with Japan. More and more, the U.S. is encouraging Japan to break from the pacifist constitution—the constitution that America and its allies created. To the consternation of neighboring nations that still remember Japan’s brutal war making in World War II (and which the U.S. has apparently long forgotten), Washington views  the rearmed Japan—possessing first-strike capacity—as its best shot at keeping China in check.

This is a fundamentally flawed strategy. In the medium-to-long term, it will do nothing to suppress China’s rise. Ultimately it will actually serve to increase the power of what is soon to emerge as a heavily militarized, united Asian superpower.

The shift of power away from the U.S. and toward China isn’t merely an outgrowth of the recent U.S. government closure—this trend has been unfolding for years. The shutdown has simply highlighted it and, to a degree yet to be seen, exacerbated it.

Now, the culmination of this trend—an Asia that operates independently of America’s influence, and is likely dominated by China (and Russia)—looks increasingly inevitable. It appears America has been checkmated.  The question facing the Americans is  would Obama still continue sleeping a  la Rip Van Winkle.

Why Germany Leads West?

In any relationship, whether between persons or between countries, fallingin love is very often  a sure path to tragedy. But it can be salvation also, especially in a situation when the world needs effective leadership. To fallin love is to enter an intimate relationship casually, blindly. Fallinginto a relationship means failing to take the time to evaluate the character, personality and history of the target of your affections; neglecting to measure compatibility and whether the elements exist for a healthy, lasting relationship.

It’s important we think about this, because the world is falling in love with Germany. Germany and the German people are respected and admired throughout the world. It’s easy to understand why. The people appreciate and admire the German psyche: the work ethic; the quality of craftsmanship; the respect for law and order; the frugality, the discipline, individually and collectively, in the face of materialism; the emotional and mental stoicism and toughness; the reliability. There is much to admire and love.

Compared to her suitors—notably Britain and America, two recklessly led countries that are collapsing daily—Germany, with its financial stability, its robust economy, its cautious, calculated politics and sound-minded global leadership, looks like a supermodel. For a world that craves leadership, strength and constancy, a world searching for a nation it can depend on, a nation with a bright and hopeful future, Germany seems the ideal choice.

But as we fall for Germany, we need to stop and consider. It is time for introspection. Germany, like all peoples, has ugly sides to its personality. Have we deeply considered these? More significantly, although it’s politically incorrect to discuss, Germany has a long history with tyranny, with powerful men and regimes amassing power then abusing it with unspeakable cruelty and horror. You would never give your heart to such a person. Yet, here we are, giving our hearts and souls to Germany.

It can only end in tragedy.

Deutschland über Alles

It’s been nearly 70 years since World War II ended, and 24 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Today Germany and the German people are respected, admired, and very often envied by peoples and nations the world over. Much of this is deserved, too.

In May, Germany took first placein the BBC’s annual poll of the “most popular country in the world.” In the survey of 26,000 people from 25 countries, 59 percent said Germany has a “positive influence” in the world. In the “Nation Brands Index,” a large survey conducted by research company GfK to measure the global image of various countries, Germany came in second to America.

In May 2012, the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), an organization that informs the opinions and policies of the German government, conducted an in-depth study of the perception and reputation of Germany and the Germans. The report revealed a world that is not only agreeable to increased German leadership, but yearning for Berlin to take more control.

Many countries have high expectations of Germany and see it playing a bigger role in Europe and the world,” GIZ reported. Feedback indicated that “almost everyone expects Germany to take on a major role,” and that the only thing holding Germany back right now is Germany.

Analysts at GIZ were surprised. “Expectations that Germany will in future take on the role of honest broker more frequently are ASTONISHINGLY HIGH—not just for ‘politically safe’ areas like energy and climate, but also on highly controversial issues like Iran and Syria”(emphasis added throughout).

Even Germany’s contemporaries in Europe, though they might sometimes balk at German demands, craveGerman leadership. Chancellor Angela Merkel is often criticized and ridiculed, but when she speaks, Europe listens—and conforms. Europeans know that their fate, financially and politically, rests with Germany.

Don’t Hide Behind Your History’

The global swoon over all things Deutschgoes beyond a love for BMWs and Oktoberfest. Important people on every continent—world leaders, statesmen, finance gurus, journalists—are begging Germany to do more to solve major world problems.

President Obama lavished Chancellor Merkel with praise in 2011 while presenting her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom—the highest honour America can give a civilian, and an award usually given only to American citizens. “Don’t hide behind your history, said the president. Act in accordance with your importance,” reported the German weekly Die Zeit.The world today does not fear a strong Germany,” Der Tagesspiegelrecorded Obama as saying. “IT IS, RATHER, DISAPPOINTED WHEN GERMANY IS TOO RESERVED.”

On June 19 this year, in a speech beneath the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Mr. Obama again invited Germany to assume more leadership. “[Sometimes there can be a sense that the great challenges have somehow passed. And that brings with it a temptation to turn inward .… But I come here today, Berlin, to say complacency is not the character of great nations. … And I’ve come here, to this city of hope, because the tests of our time demand the same fighting spirit that defined Berlin a half century ago.”

The world’s fortunes depend on Germany, and Berlin has the responsibility to lead the world, Mr. Obama explained. “[W]e are not only citizens of America or Germany—we are also citizens of the world. And our fates and fortunes are linked like never before. … I say all this here, in the heart of Europe, because our shared past shows that none of these challenges can be met UNLESS WE SEE OURSELVES AS PART OF SOMETHING BIGGER THAN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE. Our alliance is the foundation of global security. … We cannot shrink from our role .…”

Thirty years ago, that speech would have been delivered in Hyde Park, or outside Buckingham Palace. But today, Britain, like America, is collapsing from the inside; it is a shell of its former self. America’s president has made it clear that he disdains the special, historic relationship—the alliance that secured global security during the 20th century—between Britain and America.

So here he was in Berlin, foolishly declaring America’s affections for the nation responsible for some of the greatest suffering in human history.

Germany, Lead Us, We Beg You’

In July, London Mayor Boris Johnson, during a visit to Berlin with his family, wrote a gushing article celebrating Germany’s rise and reproving those who view Germany with caution. Johnson recalled his grandfather’s distress about a reunited Germany. “Everything tells me that his anxieties were baseless,and that the reunification of Germany has been one of the greatest success stories of modern geopolitics,” he wrote (July 21).

Baseless?Aren’t the horrors of World War II legitimate justification for some skepticism over Germany’s unification and emergence as a leading world power?

You look at Berliners today,” Johnson wrote, “and you ask yourself what the fuss was about, 24 years ago. There were people like my grandfather, and Margaret Thatcher, who were instinctively hostile to German unification. … There were the Euro-federalists, who argued that Germany needed to be ‘locked in’ to Europe. We needed a single CURRENCY to ‘contain’ Germany, they claimed, to ‘tie them in’—as though the Germans were [a] loose cannon rolling about the European quarterdeck, about to crush innocent Slavic nations. WHAT A LOAD OF BUNK THAT TURNED OUT TO BE.”

What shallow, shortsighted analysis. To understand “what the fuss was about,” and to evaluate whether Germany could pose a threat, we can’t just “look at Berliners today.” Britain made this mistake during the 1930s, when many influential people, including the Prince of Wales—much like Boris Johnson today—admired and praised what they saw in Berlin. We must consider the facts of the past and present, study the trajectory, and then marshal all these pieces to build a picture of the future.

We ought to be less concerned about what Germany looks like today, and more concerned about what the nation will look like in 2, 5, 10 or 20 years!

Mr. Johnson concluded: “I can understand why my grandfather’s generation felt as it did, but it is emphatically time to forget all that and embrace the new Germany. … WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FEAR.”

What a sweeping endorsement: Forget history, embrace Germany’s hegemony, fear nothing!Johnson will live to regret those words.

This sentiment prevails in capitals all over the world—even in nations that not all that long ago were destroyed and occupied by Germany. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, stated in November 2011: “I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I FEAR GERMAN POWER LESS THAN I AM BEGINNING TO FEAR GERMAN INACTIVITY. You have become Europe’s indispensable nation.”

It’s difficult to find consensus among nations, but on the subject of Germany and its place in the global order, the world is in harmony: Germany, we want you, we need you, please do more!

Again, one can understand the logic. Major world problems are mounting. The West’s competitors—Russia, China, Iran and radical Islam—are increasingly belligerent. And the U.S., overwhelmed by domestic crises and led by a foreign-policy introvert, is abandoning the bridge. Meanwhile, Germany has one of the largest and healthiest economies in the world, is responsibly managed both politically and financially, and has the size and military and diplomatic infrastructure to exert leadership. Germany is strong but pacifist, adept but not overtly domineering.

It lookslike the perfect savior.

The Reluctant Superpower

Berlin has answered the global clamor very shrewdly. Its leaders haven’t responded with arrogance, marching about with an “it’s about time” look on their faces. Angela Merkel hasn’t turned diva, prancing around making outrageous demands or obnoxiously lording it over others. To the contrary, Berlin is handling the attention with caution, reticence and modesty.

Germany reciprocates, but coyly, with a shy smile. Berlin is involved, often centrally, in all the important issues. It gives decisive input, signs agreements and joint statements, and dispatches its diplomats, and even its military, all over the world. It provides leadership—but it does so quietly, gently, and seemingly reservedly, with a hint of regret. Germany, as the Telegraphrecently put it, appears to be a “reluctant superpower.”

This inflames the world’s affections and only makes us pine more!

Consider Germany’s conduct in Europe’s debt crisis. No one doubts that the solution can only come from Berlin. Although EU officials and European leaders participate in most conversations, on a practical level the decisions and policies are approved by Berlin. Germany isleading Europe through this crisis. But it is leading in a way that doesn’t overly concern or frighten Europe. More often, it makes Europe desire more German leadership and intervention.

We see this same strategy in Germany’s foreign policy. Consider Libya. When America, Britain and France ran off to war in 2012, Germany sat on the bench alongside Russia and China. The result? First, Germany avoided being blamed for aiding the rise of radical Islam in Libya. But it also showed itself to be independentof America and Britain, a lackey to no one. In Libya, Germany was the wise old man that more people ought to have listened to.

It’s the same in Syria. Instead of being among the first to sign Barack Obama’s statement at the G-20 condemning Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons attack, Germany was the last. Think back to the height of the Syria crisis. Can you remember a strong speech from Angela Merkel or Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle? It’s not that Germany doesn’t have a role in Syria—it does, especially via its arming of Saudi Arabia and Gulf states with military hardware. Germany isinvolved, but in a cautious and calculated manner, a manner that avoids offense and wins respect among its counterparts on both sides.

This strategy is working, too. Notice what President Assad stated in an October interview with Der Spiegel:When I think of Europe, I ask myself who is closer to the reality in my region? Every European position is still far from our reality. Germany and Austria have the most objective and closest position to reality. THE GERMAN POSITION IS THE CLOSEST.” Asked if Germany could play the role of mediator, Assad replied: “Of course, I would like to see envoys from Germany come to Syria to see and discuss the reality. Coming here doesn’t mean you support the government. But if you come here, you can do, you can talk, you can discuss, you can convince.”

Even Syriawants more German leadership! Now that’s impressive!

The same day the Assad interview was published, Iranian President Hasan Rouhani called on Germany to play a “positive and constructive role” in the following week’s negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. The P5 is comprised of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Guess who the +1 is? Germany. Even Iran, the sworn enemy of the West, seems to recognize Germany’s potential as a leader.

This strategy of playing the coy and reluctant superpower is evident in Germany’s dealings on every continent. The nation is entrenched politically and militarily, and especially in trade and commerce, in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. But its presence in these regions is strong but quiet, influential but not offensive, and smartly calibrated to cause its hosts to crave more German involvement.

Historical Amnesia

Earlier this year during a conversation with a German journalist in Hamburg, I raised the question of Germany’s imperialist history and whether it ought to be considered when we discuss Germany’s ascension today. His response was cogent and delivered matter of factly, as if the question itself was passé: Listen, you guys are going to have to get past World War II. It has no bearing on the present.

This man was speaking about the fewtoday who factor in history when evaluating contemporary geopolitics. Because as we’ve seen, the generalview is that we must forget Germany’s history, and that the German people need to get past it too. “Almost everyone expects Germany to take on a major role,” the GIZ survey found. “FEW RESPONDENTS VOICE[D] RESERVATIONS STEMMING FROM THE COUNTRY’S FORMER STRIVING FOR HEGEMONY AND NAZI CRIMES.” Barack Obama has cautioned Germany against “hiding behind its history.” Boris Johnson says we have “absolutely nothing to fear.”

Forgetting or ignoring the horrors of Germany’s past makes us feel noble, merciful, forgiving. But this view is more self-righteous than righteous.

We must not forget that only 74 years—just one lifetimeago, Germany started the most destructive war in human history. Today we’re taught that it wasn’t the Germans, but just Adolf Hitler and a few friends, that caused the Second World War. We’re taught that the war was imposed on the German people as much as it was on the world. This just isn’t true. The war was Hitler’s brainchild, but it was supported and fought by the German people.

We must not forget that less than a quarter of a century before World War II, Germany instigated World War I, the most destructive war in human history to that time. Today we’re commonly led to believe that this war started in the Balkans with the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand. The truth is, the war started because Germany pushed Austria to declare war on Serbia, thereby thrusting the major powers into conflict.

We must not forget the 19th-century history of Prussian Prince Otto Von Bismarck, the man responsible for consolidating the German states, augmenting Prussian power, and igniting the flame of modern German nationalism. Under Bismarck, the imperialist German empire initiated violent wars with the peoples of eastern and southern Europe, as well as France.

We must not forget the history of the Habsburg Dynasty, which was centred in what today is southern Germany and Austria. This too was an imperialist empire, one that expanded using a well-crafted strategy of violence, politics and romance to encompass most of Europe, the Americas and East Indies.

We must not forget the history of Otto the Great, the 10th-century German emperor, the forefather of German nationalism, and the man who under moral and spiritual cover from the Catholic Church conquered the people of central, southern and eastern Europe and established the GermanHoly Roman Empire.

Germany is not responsible for all of Europe’s history with war and violence. Napoleon was French. So was Charlemagne. The Spanish had their moments. But if you study objectively the past millennium of European history, you’ll find that leaders, kingdoms and regimes that were headquartered in southern Germany and Austria instigated the majority of Europe’s conflicts.

ONE THOUSAND YEARS of history teaches that when Germany is united and strong, and when it is ruled by a particular type of leader, its natural tendency is to expand and conquer. ONE THOUSAND YEARS of history teaches that the German people have a deeply rooted nationalism that can be exploited and can lead to cruel and violent action. ONE THOUSAND YEARS of history teaches that the German people, for all their wonderful qualities, have a deep weakness for embracing tyrannical leaders.


Whenever I read about the history of the 1930s and the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, I’m always struck by the behavior of Britain and America. Many people weren’t merely naive or ignorant of Hitler and his ambitions. Many actually admired the man, his ambitions, and even Nazism. Shockingly, many British politicians, artists and media personalities visited Germany and fell in love.

Can you imagine? ManyBritish and American leaders were infatuatedwith Germany—just years before Hitler thrust the world into a nightmare!There’s a powerful lesson there for us today. Sure, no German leader is publicly declaring his hatred for Jews the way Hitler did. Germany doesn’t appear to be as militaristic. We haven’t seen ominous edicts like Hitler’s Nuremberg laws. Nevertheless, Germany—in spite of, or perhaps because of, its long history of imperialism—is rapidly gaining dominance.

History demands that we be more careful.

Think on it. If you look back on each of the six resurrections of the Holy Roman Empire, it’s easy to see each for the incredibly cruel and violent entity that it was. In each case,often long beforethe regime attained the height of its power, it was evident that it would inflict catastrophic damage. Take Hitler. It wasn’t hard to recognize Hitler’s capacity for evil long before World War II. He laid out his plans for world dominion inMein Kampfin 1926! Throughout the 1930s he rejected agreements, built his military, persecuted Jews, and toward the end of the decade even invaded other countries. It was said about Hitler that his eyes shone when he spoke, as if there was another power speaking through him. He delivered speeches with such fervor and emotion that he’d often collapse into a heap afterward. It was as if his body had been used by a foreign power.

This being is the master of obfuscation and circumlocution, of smokescreens and sleight of hand. And he’s pulling out all the tricks to deceive us and lull us into a false sense of security. Who considers Angela Merkel a threat? She’s the antithesis of Hitler. We don’t see German leaders swaggering around openly plotting invasions. The German public, which appears to still be carrying around the guilt of World War II, looks pacifist and disinterested in engaging the world. Compared to others, Germany’s military looks small. Germany today appears the exact oppositeof an imminent imperialist power. It’s the perfect ruse!

Today we have to look harder and deeper than Churchill ever did. There’s no Mein Kampf,no obvious dictator at the moment, no Nazi Party, no goosestepping, no ominous hints of an impending genocide. But look closely, and you will see that Germany possesses all the basic requirements to unite Europe and establish what Bible prophecy says will be a Catholic-inspired, German-led global dictatorship.

First, there is a desperate need for leadership. Germany has the financial supremacy, the reputation and respect regionally and globally, the geopolitical experience and acumen, and the military infrastructure and power. Consider also the geopolitical landscape. Who’s around and willing to check Germany’s ascendance? France, Britain, America? Forget it. Russia and China? They are its friends, for now.

You can argue that Germany lacks a Hitler, Napoleon or Charlemagne, someone with the personality and will to shape Germany and Europe into a superpower. That’s fair. But that can change quickly. Then what happens when such a man comes along, as the Bible says he will? In that moment, he will take all these components and virtually overnight transform Germany into a terrifying superpower.

Beyond all this, there’s something the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire has that the others lacked—something brilliant and remarkable—something virtually unprecedented in human history. That is, Germany today has the love of the world—and an OPEN INVITATION to take global leadership!

Taqiyah (the islamic holy act of lying) Is Onion Shaped

Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? It is an Arabic word and it means dissimulation. Another word used synonymously is kitman, which means concealment.

This concealment has many layers.  The most common form of taqiyah is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.

On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life.  How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied.  (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).
Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim.  Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”
Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality.  Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)
In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?
This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.”  The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”
The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.”
Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)
One characteristic of democracy is freedom of belief. This is utterly alien to Islam. The Quran 3: 85 says, “whoso desires another religion than Islam it shall not be accepted of him.”  The punishment of apostasy in Islam is death. No Islamic country allows its Muslim citizens to change their religion.
Mo also assured his audience that Islam is not here to take over the world. He lied. People often make the mistake of comparing Islam to Christianity and other faiths. All religions are personal. They are about enlightenment or relationship with God.  Islam is about world domination. The focus of Islam is on expansion. A hadith narrated by Bukhari (4: 53: 386) makes this clear. It says that when Umar sent Muslim army to Persia, “the representative of Khosrau came out with 40,000 warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”
The order to fight till the non-Muslims worship Allah has not changed. Muslims will not abandon their quest for domination until they succeed or they are defeated. They have no choice in this.  They are programmed to spread Islam through deception or war.  They can’t be a Muslim and not advance their religion. The obligation to spread Islam is on every Muslim.  But we e have the choice. We can submit, or fight back and defeat them.  But how can we do that if we are not even aware that we are under attack? Taqiyah is what Muslims do to keep us in the sedated state.
Muhammad said al Islamo deenun va dawlah, (Islam is religion and state).  The goal of Islam is to take over the world and establish a world caliphate.  Without this goal Islam becomes meaningless.  The whole idea of jihad, which is an obligation on every Muslim, is to expand the Islamic domain.  It is also said that the bigger jihad is the struggle against one’s self. This is a lie too. Many scholars of Islam have refuted this as an innovation, something that was never said by Muhammad.
Jihad is through war, through financing the war (zakat) and through deception. The disagreement between Muslims is not in whether the west should become Islamic or not, but in whether it should be annexed through qital (fighting) or through taqiyah (deceiving).
The Quran 9:33 says, Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religions. One does not have to read the history of Islamic conquest and oppression of their vanquished nations throughout the last 1400 years to know Muslims have no regards for the human rights of the non-Muslims. A look at how the minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries in the 21st century can make that point clear.
When Muslims become the majority, they deny the minorities any participation in political life. No non-Muslim is allowed to run for the head of any Islamic country and where they are allowed to become a member of parliament, it is only as a representative of their people. They are like ambassadors of their co-religionists in the Islamic state. They have no role in how the country should be run, but only as a liaison between the state and their co-religionists who are regarded as second class citizens.
Some of the EDL members expressed their concerned about their daughters who had to married to Muslims and brainwash to cut their ties with their family.  Mo Ansar responded with more lies. He said, “If there are girls who have converted to Islam and are told you cannot meet your family; if that happens, I’d say now clearly, that it is not allowed in Islam.”
Mo should know that Muhammad ordered his daughter Zeinab to leave her unbelieving husband Abul As, until he was forced to convert. He told his followers to cut their ties with their families and to emigrate from Mecca. These stories are all recorded in the Sira.
Everything Mo said in that meeting was a lie.  Of course he is not an ignorant Muslim.  He just considered that in that gathering lying was more beneficial that telling the truth and that too is acceptable in Islam.
Muslims are permitted to lie even under oath to promote Islam and when the necessity justifies it. All they have to do for expiation of lying under oath is to feed someone or fast for three days (Q. 5:89). The Quran also says, “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” (Q. 2:225). So if the intent is to advance Islam all lies are permissible.
Imam Ghazzali (1058-1111), arguably the greatest Islamic scholar noted, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”
Mo’s deception had no bounds. He even went as far as saying “I have been fighting for gay rights for 15 years. Many people are surprised by that.”  If it were true, it would be very surprising.  But it is not true.  In at least five places the Quran condemns homosexuality in the severest term and in 4:16, it says, punish them both, unless they repent and amend.
Mo’s audience however, was not fooled. One person noted, “He is just pandering to the audience, saying things he thinks the audience likes to hear. He thinks we are all dimwits.”
Was Mo Ansar really sincere? In the same documentary, (minutes 25) when Tommy Robinson said, there are certain verses in the Quran that glorify murder, rape and slavery and suggested that these verses should be phased out, Mo blamed the lack of understanding of the Quran and not the Quran itself. How can “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, let them find harshness in you,” or beat your wife if you fear she is thinking of disobeying you” can be interpreted in any other way?   The Quran is a book of hate and violence.  Mo knows it, but he hides the truth.
Mo’s insincerity was put to the litmus test by a fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaaz, who asked him whether he agreed with the Quranic law of chopping the limbs of a thief and other barbaric laws such as stoning. Mo first tried to play taqiyah and said he wouldn’t, but when pressed, he began stuttering and tried to evade the answer by saying he would seek the consensus of the ulama.  It became clear that he was lying all along.  He would not go against any of the teachings of the Quran, even when they are all barbaric and inhumane.
Maajid-NawazWhat about Maajid Nawaaz? He had no problem saying some of the teachings of the Quran are morally reprehensible. This is quite a statement for a Muslim. Is he sincere? Maajid is the chairman of Quilliam Foundation, a self-styled organization that claims to counter Islamic extremism.
He was a recruiter of Hizbul Tahrir, a terrorist organization, and an advocate for Islamic caliphate for 13 years. He says that he was reformed while serving a five years jail sentence in Egypt for his political activities. Now he claims that he rejects extremism and is a moderate Muslim.
Taqiyah is like an onion. One layer hides another layer, which hides yet another layer and so on and so forth.  There is nothing surprising for a Muslim to realize Islam is not compatible with our time and leave it.  I made the transition myself and have helped thousands to do it.  However, those who come to see the truth, leave Islam. They don’t go around promoting a moderate version of Islam. There is no such thing. You either accept the inhuman and backward teachings of Islam or you don’t accept Islam at all.
Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few.  Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?
We have to understand that there is a big difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism. Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Jews and Christians believe their sacred texts were written by humans who were inspired by God.  This is a crucial distinction. So while a Jew or a Christian can reject an outdated part of his scripture as the error of its authors, a Muslim does not have that luxury.  Muslims can’t pick and choose. Allah in the Quran asserts, “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3).  How can one add or subtract to what God has perfected? That idea is preposterous to Muslims.
Another verse says, “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection? They will be consigned to most grievous suffering. For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)
It is unlikely that Maajid and his fellow so called moderate Muslims don’t know this. So how can they call themselves Muslim and reject the clear laws of the Quran? They are playing another layer of taqiyah. Their goal is not to reform Islam, something they know is impossible, but to buy legitimacy and more time for it until they become the majority and take over the world. I sounded the clarion about the danger of Islam 16 years ago, and now I warn you again that these so called moderates are wolves in sheep clothing. Don’t fear the terrorists. Fear the enemy within.
Muslims are allowed to reject part or all of Islam and even malign their prophet in order to deceive their victims. Bukhari 5:59: 369 narrates that in Medina there was a young handsome man, a leader of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir, by the name of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. After Muhammad banished their sister tribe of Bani Qainuqa from the city, Ka’b went to Mecca seeking protection from the Quraish. When Muhammad heard the news he went on his pulpit and said, “who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?”  Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands alms from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.”
The story goes on to say how ibn Maslama deceived Ka’b by badmouthing his prophet and when Ka’b trusted him, he and other Muslims, among them Ka’b’s own foster brother who had converted to Islam stabbed him to death.  By denouncing the Quran, Maajid is not doing anything unIslamic. He is taking his deception to a higher level.
The deception has paid off handsomely. Instead of serving time in jail Maajid now shakes hands with George W. Bush and Tony Blair, appears in Bill Maher show and sits next to Richard Dawkins,  is a chairman of a foundation, and has run for MP in UK.  He is far more effective in destroy the western civilization from within, through taqiyah, than by placing bombs in buildings and buses.
Could I be mistaken? Have I come to a hasty conclusion? I invite Maajid Nawaaz to show my error and prove to the world that he is not deceiving them. Maybe I too will join his Quilliam organization and support his efforts. If he is sincere, he will accept this invitation. But based on my experience with “moderate Muslims,” I have a feeling that Maajid’s reply will be a deafening silence.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. Falling into this trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.