Christiane Amanpour: ‘With Understanding Comes Knowledge…’

*British born ‘extremists’ like Omar Brooks say they are prepared for Jihad

* Omar Brooks is usually in cohorts with Anjem Choudary of the radical group Al Ghurabaa

*Christiane Amanpour:

*With knowledge comes understanding*

Unfortunately for her, she lacks knowledge and she doesn’t understand. She doesn’t know what’s in the Koran or in the sunnah, she doesn’t know about the psychology of the musulman.


Listen to Abu Izzadeen:


We are the Muslims,” said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. “We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.”
You see, Omar Brooks understands his religion. He is a ‘good muslim’- he follows the Koranic teachings. The ‘moderates’ don’t have a leg to stand on.
What does she know about Jiziyah and dhimmitude? She ignores the 1350 years of relentless jihad-warfare against the west and the attitudes of the primitive muslim masses:

Christiane Amanpour is confused (or is she deliberately confusing her audience?)  didn’t she learn about the 164 jihad verses in the Koran? She goes looking for ‘grievances’-  she provides a forum for soft spoken, cunning, cool and noisy Jihadists, she presents the never ending litany of Muhammedan grievances-, from ‘Islamophobia’ – (a much maligned and too often repeated word;) she tells us ‘we need to listen to them’- and she keeps looking to find the elusive ‘moderate muslims’-. But since they don’t exist, she finds some ignorant muslims who may or may not back the jihad ideology and the wholesale slaughter of infidels and Jews, but since they are not ‘real’ muslims, her efforts are in vain.

Here’s the link from CNN, expect to be disappointed.

Read it all…

11 thoughts on “Christiane Amanpour: ‘With Understanding Comes Knowledge…’”

  1. you do realise she is actually half Iranian. Her father’s name is Mohammed Amnpour and her mother is British. She spend her childhood in Iran and probably knows a lot more about Islam than you think.

  2. Amanpour needs to spend some quality time in the old country. Perhaps after about five years of that she will attain knowledge after understanding
    how dreadful Islam really is on a daily basis.

  3. Here is the full text of Hugh Fitzgeralds take on Amanpour, which hits the nail on the head:

    January 19, 2007

    Fitzgerald: A tribute to Christiane Amanpour
    Christiane Amanpour, despite her family background, has no real experience or knowledge of Islam. Herself secular, and married (in a mariage blanc) to James Rubin, she is confused about Islam. She knows Iranian Muslims who are nothing like the Iranian Muslims now in power, but she fails to recognize that those she knows were never the real thing. She doesn’t realize that they were unrepresentative, as unrepresentative of Islam as was, say, Maxim Litvinov of the Soviet regime — even though he served that regime as Foreign Minister and as ambassador.

    She is defensive about Islam without knowing about it, and without knowing how the primitive Muslim masses think. Yet that is what should count in Infidel calculations, and not the suave and often deceptive exceptions — whether they are Chalabi and other westernized Shi’a exiles inveigling the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein, or plummy-voiced Prince Hassan, a real performance artist, capable of impressing the impressionable.

    Amanpour has never studied Islam, never quite grasped the significance of its texts. After all, apparently her own parents were capable of ignoring large parts of them. Nor has she studied the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims and destruction of non-Muslim cultures, although as someone of Iranian descent, she might well have bothered to do so. Her name gives her, for audiences, a false authenticity, and allows her to be endowed with an authority her level of knowledge does not actually entitle her to claim, or to have attributed to her.

    Meanwhile, there is that CNN glory. There is that money. There is that celebritydom. There is that Washington wedding, attended by le tout Clinton administration, and that marriage of convenience, that mariage blanc.

    Petro-dollars explain part of it. Stupidity another part. In the case of Amanpour, one wondered how she would come out. Would she realize, in the manner of so many Iranians in exile, that Islam and not merely the Islamic Republic of Iran, was the problem? Would she move from her older positions, like Oriana Fallaci, and see what Islam was all about? Or would she play her “Islamic” card for all it was worth to her — in entree here and there (to the Hajj, for example)? She is a careerist hell-bent on furthering her career. And what better way to further her career at this point in history than in being a Muslim? Not a real one — her faith is as sham as her marriage. Instead, she is almost a “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslim, who does what she does out of a curious blend of monomaniacal careerism and ambition, together with filial piety. There is also in play for her all sorts of misremembered nostalgia for that jeunesse-doree life as a spoiled child in Teheran — a child of the very class that benefited financially from the ancien regime, that corrupt, stupid, and unaware regime, that when confronted with Khomeini did not know where to put its feet and hands.

    She used to be tolerable — just. No longer.

    Why does the press, why does television, who do political leaders simply refuse to even hint at the truth? Do they think this makes things better, makes us more able to conduct ourselves in what is a permanent war? When, to give one example, 60 Minutes some time ago had a segment devoted to Muslim mistreatment of women among the immigrants in France, the bland and blind though endlessly self-assured Amanpour never, not once, mentioned the word “Islam.” When one of her interviewees explains the oppression of young girls — mass rapes, burning to death, that sort of thing — as being the result of “tradition,” she lets that vague word stand unchallenged and unglossed.

    What will it take? Must there be bombs in Jain temples, or at a Confucian altar, sufficiently publicized to make clear to all but the hopelessly stupid and those who are wedded to false symmetries and pat phrases (not just Amanpour, but Tom Friedman, with his platitudes and fake plongitudes, comes nautically to mind)? How much evidence had to be assembled before Copernicus could dare suggest that, after all, the earth really did travel around the sun? How much evidence needs to be accumulated about what is happening now, and what has been happening for 1350 years of Islam’s aggression against all non-Muslims, for people to become their own little Copernicuses, and arrive at the unstoppable and ineluctable and unavoidable explanation of what is going on? How much evidence needs to be accumulated for even Christiane Amanpour to do so?

    Posted by Hugh at January 19, 2007 12:32 PM
    Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this |

  4. I am inclined to believe she knows more about Islam than she lets on,thats why she find it so easy to play the taqiya game so long.

    I dug this up while researching for my blog

    She was caught out lying in 1997 when she done a show about Arkan the Serbian ganster when she was showing corspes that where supposed to be
    Croats he had killed when in fact they where the corpses of Serbs,who had been murdered by Croats

    CNN threaten to sue compuserb (anti-jewish site) yet they still have not taken down the page

    Serbian family killed by the Croatian forces during the withdrawal to the Borovo Naselje, November 19, 1991. Identification: Radosav Pavic (red top), Zoran Pavlovic, Zorica Pavlovic, Nada Pavlovic and Milojka Pavlovic at 74 Nikole Demonje Street. See 50% reduced Reuter’s photo with victims’ identification. On CNN’s Impact special on Arkan on June 1, 1997 by Christiane Amanpour, dead Serbs in photos above were shown as Croats killed by Arkan.

    See CNN’s demand for CompuSerb’s retraction of truth.

  5. Reasons why islam is rediculous:

    A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.

    The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:
    Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

    We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that “a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.”

    The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). After the Quran, the hadith come second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

    Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363-3365.

    See these parallel hadith here and here.

    We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.

    . . . “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” (Bukhari)

    Here is the back-up article. This one also provides back up material. See the section at the beginning “Women Are Men’s Property.”

    Husbands are a degree above their wives.

    The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

    . . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

    Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

    The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here.)

    This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness. It should be noted that some Muslim missionaries and polemicists assert that since women make up the majority of the world, it only stands to reason that they would be the majority in hell. In reply, however, this misses the point—and may miss the possibility that women may be more spiritual than men. Regardless, the reason that women make up the majority in hell is their harshness and ingratitude. So it has nothing to do with a mathematical majority. Islam clearly does not honor women.

    A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

    The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

    The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

    For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see these hadith here and here and here.

    Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

    The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara’id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.

    This Islamic law is regressive. But in the US, for example, the inheritance is divided equally among all siblings, regardless of the gender. No religious law prohibits this from happening in advance. So American secular law fits into a modern context better, where women have more economic opportunities and freedom.

  6. Reasons why islam is rediculous:

    A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

    The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

    And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

    It seems that the foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may “forget” something. This goes to the nature of womankind. Philosophers teach us that one of the main differences between animals and humans lies in humankind’s rationality. But this verse implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

    This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Sura 2:282:

    The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Bukhari, emphasis added)

    A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

    The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

    And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. (In that case) there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

    The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why should it be necessary to have the intervening steps of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

    To see this tragedy in real life, go to this question and answer at a traditional Muslim fatwa website. Apparently, a Muslim husband pronounced divorce three times, the divorce is final, and now he regrets his decision made in haste and anger. The cleric or scholar says that they are allowed to reconcile only if she follows the Quranic steps of her marrying someone else, consummating that marriage, and then his divorcing her. However, Islam should allow this original divorced couple to reunite without the intervening steps or without an analysis of different levels of anger (click on the link). Let them reconcile—period.

    As for divorce generally,

    Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.

    The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

    And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

    Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. But Islam traffics in injustice too often.

    Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so.

    For more information on this Quran-inspired immorality, see this short article.

    See also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave-girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars while being based in Medina.

    The hadith demonstrate that Muslim jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

    Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

    The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

    What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

    Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

    This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave-girls.

    Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists “received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.” They asked the prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invokes the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

    It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; also go here and here)

    That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

    It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

  7. Reasons why islam is rediculous:

    A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

    The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

    And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

    The clause “marry those who have fallen in your possession” means slave-girls who were captured after a war. Men may “marry” them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave-girls as they wanted.

    Maududi paraphrases the verse: “If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities” (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).

    However, Muhammad would not allow polygamy for his son-in-law Ali, because an extra wife would hurt Muhammad’s first daughter Fatima, by his first wife Khadija. Fatima was married to Ali.

    I heard Allah’s Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, “Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don’t give permission, and will not give permission unless ‘Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.” (Bukhari)

    Despite the fact that Muhammad is very much aware that polygamy is hurtful and insulting to women, he still practices it himself and allows it for his followers in general.

  8. Reasons why islam is rediculous:

    Muhammad’s “special” marriage privileges

    Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre-Islamic days of “ignorance.”

    The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

    O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave-girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . . (Maududi vol. 4, p. 111, emphasis added).

    This verse says that besides those women whose dower Muhammad paid, he may marry slave-girls—that is, he may have sex with them (see this article for this Quran-inspired immorality). Maududi references three slave-girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

    This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave-girls.

    But the capstone of these “special” marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex-wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son-in-law divorced her with the prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter-in-law in a state of undress, so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah reveals to him that this marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36-44.

    This hadith says that Muhammad used to visit nine (or eleven) wives in one night

    A Muslim polygamist may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

    The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

    It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, (in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law) do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

    Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383-84, note 161). He writes:

    Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill-natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

    This means that wives are the source of a man’s inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super-human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

    Maududi continues:

    In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

    Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no-longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

    Where may Maududi get his idea about keeping or divorcing an unattractive wife?

    This article (see “the unpleasant truth behind divorce in Sura 4:130”) demonstrates that Muhammad wanted to divorce one of his wives because she was overweight and old. Instead of a divorce, she gave up her “turn” in the “rotation” with the prophet, who gladly agreed with her proposal.

  9. Reasons why islam is rediculous:

    Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded—as if domestic violence in any form is acceptable).

    The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

    The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

    Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added)

    This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:

    “He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.”
    Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

    The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

    65:1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

    Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

    Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

    Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran-believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

    This is precisely what happened in Iran after the religious revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. A girl’s marriage age was lowered to nine years.

    Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

    The hadith says:

    . . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari; since this is a serious issue, see the parallel hadith here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)

    This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

    The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” (Bukhari; see this hadith that shows Muhammad’s dream life in regards to his pursuit of little Aisha, and this one and this one. These last three links contrast with Muhammad’s pursuit of Aisha through her father Abu Bakr. Apparently Muhammad did not wait for Allah to fulfill his desire for a six year old, but took matters in his own hands.

    This hadith recounts the fifty-plus-year-old Muhammad’s and the nine-year-old Aisha’s first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

    . . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)

    This hadith describes Muhammad counseling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

    When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron.” He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?” (Bukhari) See parallel hadith here and here.

    This hadith describes Muhammad’s and Aisha’s ill-timed sexual encounters:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bukhari)

  10. Ammanwhore “Stunned”

    By: Geoffrey Dickens | May 24, 2011

    For many in the media Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to Barack Obama insistence that his country return to the 1967 borders was out of bounds. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour declared she was “stunned” by his “public lecture” of the President and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell hissed, “it was really rude,” and charged he treated Obama “like a school boy.” Mitchell didn’t reserve her criticism to Netanyahu as she even went after Republicans who dared to take his side, accusing them of “piling on the President.”

    Read more:

Comments are closed.