Why America Has Already Lost the War

images54.jpeg

Moshe Feiglin was in New York on September 11, 2001. In a flash of brilliance he understood and wrote this profound essay. What ever you may think of Feiglin, informed or otherwise, read this essay. It contains an uncomfortable truth that the liberal West is unwilling to embrace. The West prefers to negotiate its surrender believing that the “alligator” won’t eat it.

He recommended destroying their symbols just as they destroyed ours.

Subsequent events have proved him right:

When the black boxes of the hijacked airplanes are recovered, we will hear the pilots screaming “Allah Akbar” in the last moments before the crash. They slaughtered you in the name of Allah and now the President calls on you to pray to him.

Read it all…

Al-Aqsa TV: Pali Child Murders Bush, MSM Yawns

* Pali child abuse as entertainment for the whole family, while ‘Fitna’ enrages the Koranimals and the nutroots sing along

* Bush and the US government have paid, over the years, millions of dollars in aid to UNRWA for the ‘Palestinian’ Arab Muslims – and in return what do we see? - TV shows showing Arab kids stabbing the President.

hamasbush.jpg

Here is open bloodlust and Islamic supremacism, in a film produced by Muslims for Muslims — indeed, for Muslim children. Will the OIC denounce this film? Will Ban Ki-Moon and Louise Arbour?

If not, why not?

Why exactly is Fitna worse than this?

“Child Stabs President Bush to Death and Turns the White House into a Mosque in a Hamas TV Puppet Show,” from MEMRITV

*

* This is the revolting propaganda the spineless western leaders and media seem to miss very conveniently. What a shame that the very enemy bent on our destruction has their inside allies within our western nations. The media and the apologists and appeasers. This the billions of aid the west sends to them is being used for.

*

Fitna movie Trivia: Fun for the whole Family! 

26 Islamic countries want Dutch to ban Wilders movie

* Will the Dutch turn into cannibals to please their Muhammadan overlords?

What Muslims really want:

killgeertgroot.jpg

The ambassadors of 26 Islamic countries want the Netherlands to investigate whether the film Fitna made by Dutch right-wing populist MP Geert Wilders can be banned. They asked Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen whether it is possible to start legal proceedings against the anti-Islam film. The meeting at the ministry in The Hague was attended by ambassadors of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

* “Right wing populist” – Wilders should sue these media turds for vilification….

images50.jpeg

Verhagen crawls: “Thank you, dear Muslims, for not hurting us..!”

Mr Verhagen told the 26 ambassadors he was pleased that responses from the Muslim world up to now had been moderate. He said the public prosecutor was investigating whether any offence had been committed, and the Dutch government clearly distanced itself from the film.

More from Radio Netherlands

*

The Depressing List of Cowards & Appeasers Willing to Sacrifice Freedom of Speech gets longer every day

My Right To Offend You

*

images52.jpeg

Saving Wafa Sultan

There is a fatwa (death threat) on her head. Islam wants her dead.

Wafa Sultan in hiding 

(IsraelNN.com) Dr. Wafa Sultan has been forced to go into hiding with her family following a fatwa (religious edict) from an Islamic scholar, according to Omedia. Sultan faces the fatwa following a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, who Muslims revere as a prophet. Sultan argued that Denmark had the right to print the cartoons.

Sultan joins a growing list of public critics of radical Islam facing death threats. Her supporters have asked the American public to join them in writing to the embassy of Qatar, the country which sponsors Al-Jazeera, as well as to United States President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking them to defend Sultan’s right to free speech and personal safety.

If you are concerned here is the link to Atlas Shrugs.

*

Revolting SPIEGEL interview:

* These media whores are becoming more despicable by the day. Wilders is a ‘Right wing populist who wanted to provoke an international scandal’ with his film. How do you deal with such Assholes without whacking them upside the head?

images53.jpeg

‘Moderate Islam Is a Contradiction’

SPIEGEL: Your tirades are a challenge to all moderate Muslims and those pushing for Islamic reform.

* Note: ‘your tirades’- not the hate preachers depicted in Fitna, the movie. Who is pushing for ‘Islamic reform?’ Where are the ‘moderate Muslims?’

Wilders: Moderate Islam? That’s a contradiction. It’s going to be a long time before we see a new Koran, an equivalent to the New Testament. Attacks don’t happen in the name of Buddhism or Christianity; nor do homosexuals get beaten up, as happens daily in Amsterdam.

SPIEGEL: You have turned down many offers of dialogue from Muslim groups. You’re mainly interested in winning votes.

Wilders: I represent half a million people who are concerned about Islam. I’m a party politician and I’m not ashamed of it.

Interview conducted by Gerald Traufetter (a brainwashed idiot for the world)

*

US: Christian Nutters seek ‘peace’ with Islam-terror:

“Do good to those who hate you,” Schirch advised. “It’s the smart thing to do,”

Frontpage Mag has more

*

* Live Leak grows set of balls and puts ‘Fitna’ back up

* Fitna movie site hacked by Islamic cyber terrorists

* Should we be impressed?

*

* Princeton prof Richard Falk, newly-appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, turns out to be ‘troofer’

Princeton prof Richard Falk, newly-appointed by the UN Human Rights Council as its “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,” is also a devoted supporter of the crackpot “9/11 Truth” movement, which denies that Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

More here

*

Pat Condell is back!

The religion of fear: Islam without violence is like an egg-free omelette…

Hahahaha! Keep it coming, bro!

*

Fitna is an Embarrassment for the Dutch Cabinet

images49.jpeg

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The central thesis of Fitna is: the Koran commands Muslims to spread their faith throughout the entire world, by means of jihad and indoctrination. To show that some Muslims take these edicts literally, viewers are shown images of terror attacks in New York and Madrid. In the movie, you hear excerpts of sermons filled with hatred and Muslim crowds that cheer on the preachers.

In one scene, a girl of three is taught by rote that the Koran reveals that Jews are pigs and monkeys. At the end of the movie, suddenly one hears the sound of a page being ripped from a book followed by a message that this is a page from a telephone book, not the Qur’an, and that it is up to Muslims to deal with the intolerance in their Holy Book.

Fitna is polite, but Fitna is a severe embarrassment for the Dutch cabinet. First, because almost all of the publicity for the movie originated from the cabinet. If, last year, the Prime Minister had given a reaction along the lines of: “we cannot respond to a movie that has not yet been shown and until such a time a cabinet position will not be provided,” there would have been no worldwide, festering controversy.

Savages

A second reason for which the cabinet is suffering a severe loss of face is that it has shown that freedom of speech is not safe in its hands. By acting as if it was a worthwhile endeavor to investigate whether the movie should be banned (either before or after its release), the cabinet improperly reversed its constitutional position with regard to the Second Chamber of Parliament.

In the Netherlands, the cabinet governs, and Parliament controls the cabinet. In relation to Member of Parliament Wilders, however, the cabinet has improperly set itself up as the controller. The Dutch cabinet has actively sought to silence an elected Member of Parliament. That the Parliamentary opposition did not intervene against this appalling attempt at censorship, is more distressing than any possible movie about Islam could be. Fitna laid bare just what a distrustful image this Social-Christian cabinet has of Muslims. It considers Muslims as half-savage beasts, [a bit like Bokito, Holland's most famous gorilla] who will jump over the fence of reason at the slightest provocation and who in a collective frenzy disrupt the public peace.

They can only be kept in check by not engaging them as mature reasonable adults, by not contradicting them, not presenting them with difficult questions about their religion, by talking positively about it; all the while creating myriad emergency response plans through full crisis scenarios, because a film happens to be made about their holy book. It is just as in the case of Bokito the gorilla, who was put behind high bars in a zoo but was feverishly petted. This attitude is called “respect”, towards Muslims. I wonder what Muslims think of being regarded in this way?

Read it all

*

Fitna News Hour

* Serious Jewicidal Dhimmitude:

Dutch Jewish group: Anti-Islam film is ‘counterproductive’

250wilders_ap.jpg
By Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies

The newly-released anti-Islam film by right-wing Dutch legislator Geert Wilders drew condemnations from the Netherlands’ Central Jewish Board, which Friday called the film’s focus on anti-Jewish preachings by Muslims “counterproductive” and “generalizing.”
In a statement following the film’s online release, the board said that Wilders – the leader of the Party for Freedom – was guilty of serious generalizations. “Wilders presented demographics on the increase of Muslims in Europe with pictures from scenes of terrorist attacks, suggesting all Muslims are potential terrorists,” head of the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, Dr. Ronny Naftaniel, Saturday told Haaretz.

While the anti-Semitic material Wilders compiled “demonstrates some Muslims have terrible ideas about Jews,” the way Fitna portrays reality serves to “polarize Dutch society,” the board said, adding this was counterproductive to the fight against extremism.

ha02.jpg

* Unbelievable. These Jews will play the violins when the Handschar Brigades open up the gas chambers again…

Read it all

*

“Geert Wilders is a Christian terrorist”  

tn_2008-03-31t073237z_01_nootr_rtridsp_2_oukwd-uk-dutch-islam-indonesia.jpg

* Killers for the ‘RoP’ 

JAKARTA (Reuters) – About 50 members of a hardline Indonesian Muslim group held a rowdy protest outside the Dutch embassy on Monday, calling for the death of a Dutch lawmaker behind a film accusing the Koran of inciting violence.

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Freedom Party in the Netherlands, launched his short video on the Internet last week, drawing condemnation from Muslim nations.

Dozens of police, with two water cannon at the ready, did not intervene during the protest by white-clad members of the Islamic Defenders’ Front, some of whom hurled eggs and plastic water bottles into the compound of the Dutch embassy in Jakarta.

“I call on Muslims around the world, if you run into the maker of the film, kill him,” said one of the speakers at the rally, Awit Mashuri.

“Geert Wilders is a Christian terrorist,” declared a placard held up by a protester. “Kill Geert Wilders,” read another.

The Front is notorious for its past raids on nightspots the group accused of harbouring prostitutes and drug dealers.

In 2003, the group’s leader, Mohammad Rizieq Shihab, was jailed for seven months for inciting violence.

Reuters 

*

Melanie Philips: So what did I think of the Geert Wilders film Fitna?

I thought it was very effective, and very shocking, in showing that the inspiration for the evil acts of which it showed such horrifying glimpses lay in the Koran. It shows very clearly the precise nature of what the civilised world is up against, a war of religion with striking similarities to Nazi ideology and murderous mass hysteria.

It was, however, very careful not to call for the Koran or Islam to be banned. Instead it confined itself to calling for Muslims to reform their faith by removing the bad bits of the Koran, and for an end to the Islamising of Europe. To that extent it was not extreme at all, and indeed reformist Muslims themselves say much the same thing.

* Hmm, wonder where those ‘reformist’ Muslims are..?

*

“Wilders Film Aims to Block Dialogue”

* Take a closer look: no sign of any dialogue here…
M. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Arab News

RIYADH, 31 March 2008 — The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) has denounced Thursday’s screening of an anti-Qur’an film by a rightwing MP in the Netherlands and called on international bodies to prevent people from insulting religions.

* Not ‘religions’- ONE ‘religion’ called Islam….

“These kinds of attacks by so-called sane European politicians and scholars will lead to very serious repercussions, pushing mankind to a situation of chaos and conflict,” said Dr. Saleh S. Al-Wohaibi, secretary-general of WAMY.

More from Arab News

*

Jordanian MPs: “Kick the Dutch Ambassador out” over Fitna

y167598047939111.jpg

Just imagine for a second if any of these MPs had gotten this angry at any one of the Islamic preachers and jihadists depicted in Wilders’s film.

“Jordanian MPs want Dutch envoy dismissed over anti-Islam film,” from DPA via JW

Amman – At least 53 deputies of Jordan’s 110-member lower house of parliament on Sunday signed a memorandum urging the government to “dismiss” the Dutch ambassador to Amman following the screening by a Dutch lawmaker of a film deemed offensive to Muslims. “The memorandum calls on the government to sever diplomatic ties with the Netherlands and dismiss the Dutch ambassador,” parliamentarians said….

*

UHhh…. Intelligent Muslimah Goes Astray, Prefers Sex to Rocket Science….

oxfordprostitute_468×289.jpg

How a child prodigy at Oxford became a £130-an-hour prostitute

By ANDY DOLAN -

With the intellect to win a place at Oxford at the age of 13, Sufiah Yusof should, by now, be carving out a high-flying career for herself.

But a decade after hitting the headlines thanks to her remarkable aptitude for mathematics – and days after her father was jailed for sexually assaulting two teenagers - Miss Yusof has been exposed as a £130-an-hour prostitute.


The revelation completes a sad fall from grace for the family who were hailed the brightest in Britain after Miss Yusof and two of her siblings won university places by the time they were 16.

Calling herself Shilpa Lee, 23-year-old Miss Yusof advertises her body on an internet sex site and operates out of a back street flat in Salford. Yesterday, a friend of the former child prodigy said of her downfall: “It is all desperately heartbreaking.

“With her amazing brain she should be able to make money any way she wants. But instead her life spiralled completely out of control.

“Sufiah has suffered so many knocks in her life. I just hope she can drag herself out of this life she has got herself into.

“She is such a good person and deserves a much better life than this. Her gift really has been a curse.”

On the website, she describes herself as a ‘”very pretty size 8, 32D bust and 5ft 5in tall – available for booking every day from 11am to 8pm”.

2004: She marries Jonathan Marshall
She adds that she is a “sexy, smart student” who prefers “older gentlemen”. When an undercover reporter visited her at the flat, Miss Yusof stripped naked and gyrated on a bed as she reeled off her list of services.

Read it all

sufiahdm3003_468×661.jpg

1997: Sufiah on her first day at Oxford with her father and sister Aisha

sufiahdm3003_228×348.jpg

In 2004, she married trainee lawyer Jonathan Marshall, but the couple divorced 13 months later.

*

“The US seeks to correct its tarnished image among Muslims specially after the September 11 events which led to their attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq”

Most bizarre statement of the year:

Riyadh, March 6, IRNA - Iran’s Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Mostafa Boroujerdi said on Thursday that appointment of US special envoy to OIC Sada Cumber ran counter to governing rules and regulations of OIC.

sada_cumber.jpg

The US is not a permanent member or an observer at the OIC, therefore, its presence in the body among 57 Islamic countries has no justification and violates the OIC rules and regulations.

Every Islamic country should pass a long legal process and formalities to become an observer member but the US has made no efforts to this end, he said.


* Islam attacks America and America has a ‘tarnished image’ because of that:

The US seeks to correct its tarnished image among Muslims specially after the September 11 events which led to their attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq , he said.


The new US envoy at OIC met on Wednesday with OIC Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to outline his programs.

In the meeting, Ihsanoglu said world Muslims expect the US to depict the real image of Islam in the American society.

Iran criticizes US intervention in OIC affairs

*

Islamofascism is the problem, not ‘Islamophobia’!

Kanchan Gupta via Atlas Shrugs:

Lets worry about islamofascism!

The resolution adopted by Muslim theologians representing the various schools of Islam at the All-India Anti-terrorism Conference organised by Darul Uloom, Deoband, ‘denouncing’ terrorism but condoning radical Islam’s ghastly excesses, apart from remaining silent on Islamist terrorism in India which continues to extract a terrible price, is of a piece with the Observatory Report on Islamophobia released by the Organisation of Islamic Conference at its recent meeting in Dakar, Senegal. Both documents seek to justify manufactured Muslim rage and lay the blame for the resultant death and destruction at the doors of everybody else but Muslims.

* The ridiculous ‘Declaration against Terror’ by the fanatical Deobandi sect

_42093954_pakistan-ap416.jpg

It is ironical that Darul Uloom, Deoband, should have taken it upon itself to preach to others the virtues of tolerance – Deobandis are known for neither tolerating others or their faith nor allowing Muslims the freedom to subscribe to modernism and its attendant values. Indeed, Deobandi madarsas at home and abroad, especially in Pakistan, are known to breed Islamofascists whose dark thoughts and darker deeds generate Islamophobia against which the OIC has demanded an international law. Of course, Islamofascism must remain unrestrained and Islamofascists must be allowed the right to practice their ideology of hate. To contest this would amount to Islamophobia, and Islamophobes, as we have now been told, have no right to exist. So, like the proverbial lamb, we should meekly surrender to our slaughter. The least we can do is believe the bogus declaration issued by mullahs who gathered at Darul Uloom, Deoband.

* Deobandi smoke & mirror campaign

Here’s a confession: There was a time of innocence when I believed in the thesis that there is more than one Islam. There were those with whom you could swap ideas, share jokes and even the cup that cheers. A decade later, during which time I spent three years in Cairo and travelled more than once into the heart of Islam – well, almost, since non-Muslims are not allowed beyond Jeddah, the gateway to Mecca and Medina - I stand converted to the view that any talk of there being a moderate Islam or Islam as a religion of peace merely because of the salutation sa’laam is so much bunkum.

In any event, the ummah sees Islam as a religion that demands absolute submission, which is not really the same as a religion that is predicated on peace and equality. And although the Quran does not stress on compulsion, it does not overflow with kindness towards those who do not submit to god’s will either. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), which in this day and age would mean unlimited appeasement, and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by paying jiziya apart from humiliating conditions of subservience, for instance communal budgeting and a ‘Muslim first’ policy, as is being done in our country.

Read it all

Our all time Video favorite:

Imam Al-Husainy on Hannity one more time:

****  Unsurpassed Islamofascist derailment, Hannity at his best…****

Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutros exposes the philandering Muhammad

The weekly show “Questions About Faith” on the Egyptian based Christian Al-Hayat satellite channel features an Egyptian Coptic priest residing in the United States. Father Zakaria Boutrus, the show, and Al-Hayat TV itself, have come under harsh criticism in the Egyptian press. Boutrus and his show have been accused of attacking Islam; of being supported by the U.S. to sow division and strife; and of “mocking the verses of Allah.”

Boutrus: “I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech. I exercise my freedom of speech and talk, and no one can deny my free will. Gone are the days of the sharp sword that cut off the tongues of our people and forefathers to prevent them from speaking in the Coptic language. Gone are the days people’s heads would be chopped off if they did not convert to Islam.”

Interviewer: “What should the Muslims do to make you stop saying these things?”

Moe was a horny toad:

Notice to readers:

Boutrus: “I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech” – is obviously no longer the case, since the youtube wankers have taken the video down. But read the transcript, its worth it!

“(Al-Halabi) says: ‘ If the Prophet wanted an available woman…’ – in other words, an unmarried woman, a widow, or a single woman – ‘…he was allowed to enter her…’ I don’t like to use the word i-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e. ‘…without her guardian and without witnesses…’ Without witnesses. ‘…and against her will.’ Against her will. ‘If he desired a married woman, her husband had to divorce her for him. And if he desired a servant-girl, her master had to give her to him. He can even marry off the woman to whoever he wants, against her will.'”

Interviewer: “We know that the Prophet is allowed what others are not.”

Boutrus: “Why? Is he made of different stuff than the rest of mankind?”

MEMRI

*

Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’

Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Read it all

*   January 12, 2009

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet”

Botros.jpg

Life TV’s Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed the focal question of the show: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

He opened the show by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, which evaluated the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded that many of these so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title.

Being that this is the first of several episodes devoted to examining the concepts of morality and prophethood (with the notion that the former reinforces the latter), the theme for this particular episode was “purity” (tahara): “Was Muhammad a ‘pure’ man?”—in this context, a question concerning his sexual mores (or lack thereof).

After the preliminaries, Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet I follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.

First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim’s wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50). In fact, Father Botros has carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad.

Botros said that was only normal: according to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her. According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

The co-host, rather abruptly, interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

Botros dropped his face in his hands and mumbled, “So you still insist we discuss that?” The co-host was adamant, saying it was for Muslims’ own good to know everything.

Thus Botros, after profusely apologizing to his Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, declared: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books! If Muslims don’t like it, they should go and burn these books.”

The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him.”

Another curious hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud(one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

Said the co-host: “Surely there’s more?”

Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls”…

[Stay tuned for part II of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]

Alright, here’s the update:

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet,” Part II

Botros.jpg

This being the continuation of Fr. Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, “No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”

Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s ‘activities’ with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

Cohost: “More!”

“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”

At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds?!”

It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad laying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.

***

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet” Part III

Botros.jpg

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I and Part II.

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was reading from hadith reports stating that the prophet of Islam “admired” a 2-3 year old girl (saying that he hoped to live long enough to make her his wife), and “laid” in the grave with a dead woman.

In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Fr Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

Fr. Botros: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Fr Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes that, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.”

Fr Botros to Muslims: “So this is your prophet—the most morally upright man? Instead of being preoccupied with, say, prayer or good deeds, he was preoccupied with women?”

He next read from Faid al-Qabir (3/371), wherein Muhammad is on record saying, “My greatest loves are women and perfume: the hungry is satisfied after eating, but I never have enough of women.” Another hadith: “I can hold back from food and drink—but not from women.” After reading these hadiths, Fr Botros would just look at the screen in silence, shaking his head.

He next read an interesting narrative (contained in Umdat al-Qari and Faid al-Qabir). Reportedly, Allah sent Gabriel with some sort of celestial food (called al-kofid) to Muhammad, commanding the latter to “Eat!”—identical to when Gabriel came to Muhammad saying “Read!” (i.e., iqra, the word for Koran). The report goes on to quote Muhammad saying that the food given to him “gave me the sexual potency of 40 heavenly men.” Fr Botros next read from the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, where it says that the “heavenly man” has the sexual potency of 100 mortal men.

Wondered the priest: “So, doing the math, 40×100, we can conclude that Muhammad, whenever he ate his heavenly aphrodisiac, had the sexual potency of 4000 men? Really, O umma, is this the claim to fame of your prophet—that he was a raving sex maniac?” Then, less seriously, “Imagine the surprise when Westerners find out that, once again, it was Muhammad who first discovered Viagra!”

Zakaria Botros went on to read from more sources, such as Sunan al-Nisa’i, wherein Muhammad used to in a single night “visit” all his women, without washing in between. Asked the priest: “Why even record such obscene and embarrassing things?”

Perhaps most entertaining, Fr Botros spent some time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation for this lengthy account:

After conquering the Jews of Khaybar, and plundering their belongings, among other things, a donkey fell into the lot of the prophet, who proceeded to ask the donkey: “What is your name?”

The donkey answered, “Yazid Ibn Shihab. Allah had brought forth from my ancestry 60 donkeys, none of whom were ridden on except by prophets. None of the descendants of my grandfather remain but me, and none of the prophets remain but you and I expected you to ride me. Before you, I belonged to a Jewish man, whom I caused to stumble and fall frequently so he used to kick my stomach and beat my back.”

Here, chuckling, the priest added, “a taqiyya-practicing donkey!” He continued reading, “The prophet – may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him – said to him, ‘I will call you Ya’foor. O Ya’foor!’ Ya’foor replied, ‘I obey.’ The prophet asked, ‘Do you lust after females?’ The donkey replied, ‘No!’”

Cried the priest: “Even the donkey blushed for shame concerning your prophet’s over-sexed inquiries! Here we have what is supposed to be a miracle—a talking donkey; and of all things to communicate to this animal, your prophet’s most urgent question was whether the donkey lusts after females?”

Next, reading from Sahih Bukhari (5/2012), Fr Botros relayed an account where Muhammad went into the house of a young woman named Umaima bint Nua’m and commanded her to “Give yourself to me!” The woman responded, “Shall a queen give herself to the rabble?” Shaking his fist, Muhammad threatened her, and then sent her off to her parents.

Zakaria Botros: “You see, people, even back then, in those dark ages, there were still people who had principles, who did not give way to threats and coercion. However, the real question here is, why was Muhammad contradicting the commandments of his own Koran—“if a believing woman gives herself to the prophet” (33:50)—trying to coerce this young lady?”

Finally, with a most distasteful look on his face, the priest read from a hadith in al-Siyuti (6/395), where Muhammad asserts that, “In heaven, Mary mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives.”

“Please, O prophet,” quoth the Coptic Orthodox priest, “do not implicate our saints with your filthy practices…”

[Stay tuned for part IV of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet” Part V

Botros.jpg
“This is all from your own books, O Muslims!”

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was discussing Muhammad’s predilection for menstruating women—even though the Koran itself (as Fr Botros put it, “his own words”) forbid men from getting near to menstruating women.

Here, the priest was interested in examining Muhammad’s faithlessness towards his wives (though one would have thought the plural renders the notion of faithfulness moot), his sexually exploitative behavior, and his reliance on very obscene language.

First, Fr Botros spent some time discussing the well known story where the prophet betrayed his wife Hafsa with a slave-girl (Unfortunately, one cannot capture the hilarity with which the priest recounted this tale.)

In short, after sending Hafsa to visit her father, the latter, halfway there, realized that it was “her day”—that is, the day when, of all his wives, Muhammad would visit her for “conjugal relations.” She hurried back (Fr Botros added “She knew him well: if she wasn’t there on her day, he would go crazy and grab the first female passing by!”).

In fact, Hafsa caught Muhammad with a slave-girl on the former’s bed. Muhammad quickly evicted the slave-girl and told Hafsa that if she kept this between them, he would henceforth refrain from the slave-girl.

To no avail: Hafsa gabbed and soon all of Muhammad’s wives revolted against his incessant philandering; As Fr Botros put it, “When things got critical, Muhammad decided to drop a ‘new revelation’ on them; so he threw surat al-tahrim (66: 1-11) at them, wherein Allah supposedly chastises Muhammad for trying to please his wives by not sleeping around, threatening the wives to get in line lest the prophet divorce them—indeed, lest they all go to hell.”

Then, looking at the screen, Fr Botros asked, “Imagine, dear lady, if your husband asked you to go on errand and then you return before your time only to find him in bed with another woman? What sort of man would that make him in your eyes? Yet it’s worse—it’s your prophet, whom you all extol as the most perfect human, to be slavishly emulated!”

He then pointed out that “clever little Aisha knew him [Muhammad] well”: whenever such verses were revealed rescuing Muhammad, Aisha would often observe that “Verily, your lord [Allah] is ever quick to fulfill your whims and desires (e.g., al-Siyuti v.6, p.629).

Next the priest relayed an account portraying how the prophet sexually exploited a “retarded” woman. According to 23 sources (e.g., Sahih Muslim vol.4, p.1812) a feeble-minded woman came up to Muhammad saying, “O prophet of Allah! I have something for you.” He clandestinely met her out back and took this “something” from her.

Added Fr Botros: “I fear now that many believers will want to implement this sunna—don’t do it, guys, this is just to illustrate…. Listen you Muslims: don’t hate me for revealing all this to you; don’t lie in wait to kill me. I am merely revealing what your books contain. And, as always, we humbly await the great sheikhs and ulema to address these issues and show us where we went wrong.”

Next, Fr Botros discussed the sort of foul language Muhammad — the “greatest example” — employed: “Sorry, so sorry to reveal to you the sort of despicable language Muhammad used—language I am too ashamed to even mention. In fact, your prophet said one of the most obscene Arabic words—the equivalent of the ‘f-word’ [he counseled his Arabic viewers to google the "f-word" to understand what he was talking about]. “

Refusing to pronounce or spell this word, which he said appears in 67 books, including Sahih Bukhari, the text containing this word, “inkat-ha” — or, in context, Muhammad asking a man about a woman if he “f***** her” — was portrayed on the screen for all to read.

Then, “Quick! take that filth down! What would you Muslims do if the Sheikh of al Azhar went around using such language? Worse — it’s your prophet, the ‘greatest creation.'”

The host asked if Muhammad used any other foul language, to which the priest responded, “Oh, boy, did he ever; unfortunately this program is way too short to list them all.”

According to Qaid al-Qadir (v.1, p.381), Muhammad told Muslims to retort to uppity infidels by saying things like — again, he didn’t pronounce it, but the text appeared on the screen — “Go bite on your mother’s clitoris!” or, according to Zad al-Mi’ad (v.3, p305), “Go bite on your dad’s penis!”

Then, once again while shaking his head in sheer disappointment, “O prophet of Allah…prophet of Allah….Would that you would’ve heeded your lord Jesus’ counsel: ‘The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks’ (Luke 6:45).”

[Stay tuned for part VI of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]