Cyprus: Bar construction enrages Muslims


”Religious values should be respected in order the relations between the two sides to remain positive.”

In Cyprus, since the Turkish occupation began:

* at least 55 churches have been converted into mosques
* another 50 churches and monasteries have been converted into stables, stores, hostels, museums, or have been demolished
* the cemeteries of at least 25 villages have been desecrated and destroyed
* innumerable icons, religious artifacts and all kinds of archaeological treasures have been stolen and smuggled abroad
* illegal excavations and smuggling of antiquities is openly taking place all the time with the involvement of the occupying forces
* all Greek place names contrary to all historical and cultural reason were converted into Turkish ones.

Once again, Muselmaniacs manufacture history,  hysterics and spurious claims:

“Cyprus: Bar Construction in Mosque Infuriates Muslims,” from ANSAmed, October 25 (thanks to Jihad Watch):

(ANSAmed) – ANKARA – Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’s (KKTC) Directorate of Religious Affairs has applied to state offices in Greek Cyprus to stop the construction of a bar in the garden of the Hala Mosque in South Cyprus, which has resulted in criticism from Muslims living on the island, Today’s Zaman reports. ”Religious values should be respected in order the relations between the two sides to remain positive”, the director of Religious Affairs in the KKTC, Yusuf Suicmez, said, underlining that it is very important for Muslims because the mosque, that lies on the shores of the Larnaca Salt Lake, reportedly houses the tomb of Umm Haram, the aunt of the Prophet Muhammad, making it the fourth holiest Muslim shrine after Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.

Curiously, Muslims who warn that  “Religious values should be respected in order the relations between the two sides to remain positive”  have no such qualms or considerations when it comes to religious values of others, as we can see here:

Jihad Watch poster Hesperado tries to put it in context:

“the tomb of Umm Haram, the aunt of the Prophet Muhammad, making it the fourth holiest Muslim shrine after Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.”

I wonder if this was the aunt whose dead body Mohammed had sex with in her grave?

I have not yet ascertained the veracity of the source (and I cannot find independent verification of the Sahih Muslim reference number (“34424”) repeated in the Blogosphere and initiated apparently by Father Zakarios), while I came across another source that indicates that the dead woman Mohammed reputedly had sex with was not his aunt, but his daughter Fatima:

This is from a book called “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of “The issues of women”, authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

“I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib”… The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali.

The Arabic scholar Demetrius explains : “The Arabic word used here for “slept” is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “lay down to have sex.” Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a “mother of the believers.” This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. “Reduce the pressure” here means that the torment won’t be as much because she is now a “mother of the believers” after Muhammad slept with her and “consummated” the union.”

As for Mohammed being permitted to sleep with his aunt or daughter, Koran 33:50, after listing the different kinds of family relations (including aunts) who are forbidden for Muslims to have sex with, adds that ubiquitous little loophole we find in Islam for every depravity known to man and Satan:

“…and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her [“marry” probably just meaning the F word]…”

5 thoughts on “Cyprus”

  1. See you down at the Mosque for a couple of schooners, hah. After the British defeated Napoleon many places and pubs were named after battles etc. I can see it now after the cancer of Islamofacism has been excised. Public houses being called names like Osamas Head, The Dead Insurgent, The Legless Taliban, The Suicide Bombers Head, The Mujahadins Arms Legs and other bits Inn.

  2. The Ravaging of Cyprus

    The following book review was originally published at Europe News by Henrik Ræder Clausen.

    Book essay: The bloody truth about Cyprus

    by Henrik Ræder Clausen

    Bloody Truth

    Nicosia, March 2009. ISBN 9789963962204

    The apparently endless stalemate on Cyprus is getting a thorough treatment in the publication by the organization “Freedom and Justice for Cyprus”. While the documentation of what went down through the 1960’s and 1970’s is shocking and brutal, the real coup of the book is that it goes back to the 1950’s, once and for all settling the question of who originally created the conflict in Cyprus: It wasn’t the ‘Turkish’ Cypriots. Nor was it Turkey. It was, documentably, Great Britain.

    The book has a cover as brutal as the title, an image of Cyprus with blood dripping from the north into the southern part. Based on this, one might expect it to contain a vitriolic anti-Turkish diatribe, but this isn’t really the case. In spite of some linguistic excesses, such as the phrase “The Turkish Propaganda Machine”, the book in general sticks to the documentation of events and developments on the ground, and thus becomes a valuable resource for understanding the current stalemate, as well as for assessing the merits of various proposed solutions.

    As for who sowed the seeds of the current problems, the book is clear: It was not Turkey, nor Turkish Cypriots, it was Great Britain. Seeking a way to maintain the colonial rule established in 1923, Britain feared a united Cypriot opposition to their rule, and gradually worked to strengthen the Muslim/Turkish identity of the Muslim Cypriots. That included construction of new mosques in villages without any, initiating the use of the term “Turkish Cypriots”, and later requesting Turkey to reclaim rule of the island, an idea initially received with disinterest by the Turkish government.

    However, a committee on the subject was formed in July 1955, and in 1956, professor Nihat Erim was appointed special advisory on the Cyprus issue. In November and December 1956, he released two reports endorsing an active Turkish engagement in Cyprus, aiming first at a division of the island into Greek and Turkish parts (termed “Taksin”), and to work long-term for a full Turkish takeover. This policy was adopted by the Turkish government, and has been followed by various Turkish governments — civilian or military — since then.

    The book details chronology of various Greek and Turkish groups formed in the late 1950’s, including EOKA (Greek), VOLCAN (Turkish) and TMT (Turkish). Their chronology is particular important, for it is useful in weeding out honest statements from deceitful ones. This includes Turkish statements about the “Bloodthirsty Makarios”, the work by Rauf Denktash to turn TMT into an underground Turkish organization, the killing of Turkish voices other than those of TMT, and the efforts to make Turkish Cypriots segregate themselves from the Greek Cypriots. The tacit approval of the British in this marks a low point of harmful colonial divide-and-rule strategies.

    Descriptions of events after 1962 are somewhat more sketchy. The proposed constitutional changes in 1963 play a central role, and the efforts by the TMT to segregate the Greek and Turkish are recorded in a very varied degree of detail. The Turkish bombardment of Tylleria in August 1964 is mentioned, but the heavy fighting in the preceding months are not. Advance references to the 2004 Annan Plan and similar chronological leaps are annoying, in spite of their relevance. The 1974 invasion is likewise accounted for in an unsystematic way, jumping rapidly from overall descriptions to individual tales of mass rapes and executions by the Turkish soldiers.

    The real strength of this book is the wealth of original sources — British, Cypriot, Turkish — drawn in and quoted here. Many common fallacies and outright lies are dismantled, and for this reason it is easy to forgive the somewhat uneven narrative of the book. Harder to forgive is the lack of illustrations. Some maps providing an overview of violent incidents and the 1974 invasion would be welcome, as would some tables with statistics.

    This book provides essential background information for the situation in Cyprus. It has its strength in quoting vital original documents in their proper context, showing a clear route from British colonial machinations to direct Turkish involvement, and provides an indispensable understanding of many key events. On the other hand, it is jumpy, both chronologically and emotionally, clearly one-sided, and skips chunks of history needed for a full account of the developments.

    Review opinion: 4/6

    If you have interest in the Cyprus conflict, adding this book to your collection is recommended, in particular because it provides crucial information regarding the role played by the British.

    For those interested, more details out of “Bloody Truth”, and some closing comments:
    Read more »

  3. From the Gates of Vienna

    New Report on Turkish Atrocities in Cyprus

    The Baron asked that this report from Europe News be posted. It seems that more Turkish atrocities have been revealed, dating back to the 1970s.

    Quelle surprise!

    The Secret Report on Turkish Atrocities in Cyprus

    by Panos Ioannides

    Breaking: The secret report from Council of Europe on Turkish atrocities in Cyprus during their 1974 invasion has been recovered. This report documents the systematic and extensive human rights violations perpetrated by the Turkish army against the Greek Cypriot population, raping an murdering thousands in order to force a mass exodus and an ethnic cleansing of the northern third of Cyprus. Turkey has never been held responsible for these atrocities and, in spite of all principles of international law, is still permitted to be in control of the fruits of their 1974 aggression, the so-called Turkish Republic of North Cyprus.
    Unfortunately, the report linked at Europe news, called “Cyprus Barbary” is not available if all you have is a dial-up connection. Or maybe not so “unfortunately”. Zenster kindly looked at it for me and says it’s dense diplo-speak which lowers your IQ as you attempt to read it. Clever, those bureaucrats.

    As far as atrocities go, it would appear that Turkey is never held responsible for any of them, and pays no consequences for its arrogant denials about those million Armenians. It will be the same for the Cypriots.

    Funny how it feels free to lecture Israel while it kills Christians and persecutes the Kurdish population in Turkey. Not to mention Turkey’s Kurdish Christians. Oy vey!

    “Turkey” plus “atrocity” plus “denial” often end up in the same sentence when the subject turns to Erdogan’s country. He’s just maintaining an old cultural tradition.

  4. Jewish Detention Camps in Cyprus remembered

    The University of Cyprus is due host a hotly-anticipated lecture by Professor Emanuel Gutmann entitled, The Jewish Detention Camps in Cyprus (1946-1949): the Memories of a Contemporary Witness.

    From the Cyprus Mail

    In the second half of the 1940s Cyprus become the temporary refuge for tens of thousands of Jews. These events have been well documented in Israeli history but relatively untold in the history of Cyprus. The camps played a role in both the independence movement of Cyprus and the creation of the state of Israel. In this light, the testimony of Prof Gutmann is of great interest in understanding the history of the detention camps.
    Fleeing post-war Europe, survivors of the Holocaust found themselves barred from entering Palestine due to British quotas. Forced to immigrate illegally, they boarded ships and ventured into the Mediterranean unsure of their fate.
    The British Navy overtook 39 of these ships, carrying a total of 52,000 passengers, and sent the people to Cyprus. On the island, the British government created a series of detention camps in order to prevent Jewish refugees from another attempt at entering Palestine. These detainees, the vast majority Holocaust survivors, endured deplorable conditions in Cyprus, some for a period of years. At its peak there were nine camps in Cyprus, located at two sites about 50km apart. They were Caraolos, north of Famagusta, and Dekhelia, outside of Larnaca.
    Emissaries from Palestine lived with the refugees in the camps as representatives of various Zionist movements including the underground strike force of the Haganah. Gutman, who had emigrated from Germany as a youth, was a member of the Haganah (he also served in the British armed forces during the war in His Majesty’s Jewish Brigade) and it was his job to lead refugees from Europe to Palestine.
    Eventually, through the intervention of the Israeli government, the British slowly allowed detainees to leave the camps and head for Palestine. On February 10, 1949 the last Jews finally were freed from the confines of the camps, 267 days after the establishment of the state of Israel.
    Those wishing to attend should reserve their place by tomorrow. The lecture will begin with welcoming remarks by H.E. Ambassador of Israel Michael Harari and Christakis Papavassiliou, Presendents of the Cyprus-Israel Business Assosiation. Professor Martin Strohmeier, chairperson of the Deprtment of Turkish and Middle Estern Studies will give an introduction of the speaker. A reception will follow and exhibition of photographs of the detention camps will also be displayed.
    Gutmann was born in Munich in 1924 and immigrated with his parents to Palestine in 1936. After his stay in Cyprus he studies Political Science at Columbia University, receiving his PHD in 1958. He went on to an illustrious career first working in the Israeli consulate in New York and later as a much published professor at Hebrew University, where he taught until his retirement in 1991.
    Lecture by Professor Emanuel Gutmann, who worked in the British detention camps in Cyprus, teaching Hebrew to future immigrants. October 31, reservation essential by October 27. Social Activities Building, No7, Room 012, New Campus, University of Cyprus. 6.30pm. Free. In English. Tel: 22-893950

Comments are closed.