Bharat Rakshak

shiv wrote:
2. The original Quran is in undecipherable ancient Arabic that even modern Arabic readers cannot understand without separate training. 99% of Muslims are bullshitting when they say they read the Quran

PBUH had the revalation when he was in Syria (PBUH married a Syrian lady) and the language then used only could be Aramaic or Syriac. Even now several sections of Quran are completely Aramaic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-A ... _the_Koran
http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html

If you know the history of Christianity you will know that the Christianity spread by teh Roman empire had many of these characteristics - especially in terms of blasphemy. It was only the 100 years war in Europe where Christians slaughtered Christians that finally led to a sidelining of the church from politics. No such thing has happened with Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
Its all about Alexandria in Egypt. The scholars in Alexandria are always nit picking and it caused untold troubles for Christianity. After they were sacked by Muslims, it all stopped (Remember 3 councils of Christianity). Now muslims inherited most of the scholars in Alexandria. So the same practice came to Islam too. Also as you mentioned several wars between European nations convinced them about the Church politics

Pranav wrote: There are no major controversies as regards translations, there are several widely accepted ones.

Of course there are no major controversies among Muslims. I would be fascinated to see any controversy about the statement "Islam is a religion of peace". The absence of controversy means nothing. It also explains everything.

You see, being Islamic means first accepting that the Quran is word of God. It's not like anyone is actually asked to read the Quran and assess it critically and then decide "Hey do I agree with all this?". The first demand, the first guideline is to accept that the Quran is word of God and God's word is Quran. If you accept that before reading the Quran, you are bound to accept what is in the Quran. No controversy whatsoever. The controversies if any are created by the ulema, but they are the Quran experts an you have already accepted that Quran is the word of God. So what the ulema says is translation of word of God.

If you try and explain statements and actions on the basis of the Quran you are welcome to do that as long as you do not disagree with the Quran. But if you are already decided that you agree that the Quran is word of God, you need not read it at all. As long as someone who claims to have read it tells you something you can believe it. There is no need for you to check out or argue. In any case argument is not allowed. By all means read it. But do not disagree. That is not allowed.

The Quran is like a mystery box. No one needs to look at what is in the mystery box. As long as someone is saying "This is there" or "that is there" and everyone agrees all is well. If you open the mystery box and start analysing or questioning the contents you can get yourself bumped off. So where is the surprise about lack of controversy?

So in reality the only people who can read the Quran and be critical of its contents or have a controversy about it are are non Muslims. Since non Muslims are are already earmarked as enemies by people who claim to follow the Quran, it matters little whether you are critical or not. You are an enemy for even opening the text with a critical eye. And for a non Muslim who is already being exposed to Allahs' mercy like 26/11 and kaluchak or 9/11 it is easy to open the Quran and quote all the passages that call for killing and murder.

In the middle of all this, there are some (very few) Muslim scholars who have tried to read the Quran and have tried to explain to other Muslims that the passages calling for killing may be contextual and some practices that were halal in 600 AD are endorsed there. It is technically possible to interpret the same Quran differently. But where is the incentive to do that? Wahhabism pays for saudis. Being violently Islamic pays for Pakistanis. The environment (in the world, in Pakistan) has to be made conducive to Muslims accepting that islam is being seen as a religion of violence and murder. But before that can be understood by a lot of Pakistanis, they may have to experience the violence and murder by other Muslims on a larger scale. Naipaul writes of the deep sense of loss and sorrow in Iran after 8 years of war with fellow Muslims of Iraq. Iran may well be ready for a less radical future I don't know. But Pakistan needs to see some suffering first. IMO. It's got to get worse before it gets better. They have had it too easy.

A_Gupta,

Iran has had over 30 years of Islamic rule, and that does not seem likely to end anytime soon. Of course, the youth maybe ready for change. I think they are too, but who can project what will happen there... I wouldn't bet on any significant regime alteration there for some time to come; although Khamen'i's death will definitely be a turning point.

You see, being Islamic means first accepting that the Quran is word of God. It's not like anyone is actually asked to read the Quran and assess it critically and then decide "Hey do I agree with all this?". The first demand, the first guideline is to accept that the Quran is word of God and God's word is Quran.

Shiv Ji, minor nitpik here. The 1st demand is very simple..'Welcome to the Hotel California' type thing: Accepting Islam really starts with the words: THERE IS NO GOD..but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Muslims expect the non Muslim too to believe that the Koran is the Word of God. After the Hotel California initiation..one has no choice but to sing Paeans of the Holy Q or the Hotel California. Absolutely no choice at all.

or else W-b-Q!

or Wajib ul Cutlet.

The boxer Muhammad Ali used to do a TV commercial for a bug killer called Roach Motel: "Once things check in, they can't get out!"

Why Islam failed economically

The book analyses why Muslim nations were late in adopting modern economy, say Prafull Goradia & KR Phanda


The Long Divergence

Author: Timur Kuran

Publisher: Princeton University,

Price: $29.95

The final message of Allah was delivered by Prophet Mohammed in Arabia some 1,400 years ago. The infallibility of Islam is universally accepted by momins (faithfuls) who believe that nothing in the Quran or the Hadith can be questioned. The loyalty to the religion is so overriding that even the Ahmadiyas like Sir Mohammed Zafarullah Khan or Abdul Qadir Khan, although expelled from Islam, would not write anything remotely critical about the religion.

Compared to the enormous literature on the religion of Islam, very few books have been published about the economic performance of different Islamic nations. The book, The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East, by Timur Kuran, an American Muslim and a leading expert on Islamic economic institutions, is a thought-provoking attempt to analyse the factors responsible for the persistent underdevelopment of Islamic countries in West Asia that include the Arabs, Iran, Turkey and the Balkans. In the author’s words, the region, “at the start of the third millennium, is widely considered an economic laggard, and plethora of statistics support this consensus”.

The region fell behind the West mainly because it was late in adopting key institutions of modern economy. According to the author, the areas that have played a critical role in inhibiting the growth process are: Frozen waqf assets, atomistic financial markets and courts unsuited to the development of impersonal exchange.

In the last chapter, “Did Islam Inhibit Economic Development?”, Prof Kuran says: “Of the institutions that played prominent roles in West Asia’s slip into underdevelopment, several are traceable to Islam’s canonical Age of Felicity — the Quranic rules of inheritance, the permissibility of polygamy, the ban on riba (interest), the absence of the concept of corporation, the choice of law for non-Muslim merchant organisations.”

For two reasons, the setting up of waqf was preferred over the establishment of Western-oriented corporations: Generosity and Prestige were the motives. The founder of the waqf could appoint himself as mutawalli (caretaker), set his own salary, appoint relatives to paid positions, and designate his successors. Thus, the founder could bypass Islam’s inheritance regulations. The static perpetuity principle of the waqf made the founder more secure, since waqf was the property of Allah. In addition, distressed rulers were less likely to confiscate waqf assets. Thus, the institution of waqf served as a wealth shelter. These advantages of waqf became a handicap in the age of industrialisation.

The institution of madarsas, set up and run by waqf, has also contributed to the persistence of underdevelopment of the region. In this context, the author says: “Whatever the motives underlying the waqf’s characteristic features, they produced inefficiency.” One needs to differentiate between the the colleges established as waqf-financed madarsas and those founded contemporaneously as universities in the West. Both Paris (1180) and Oxford (1249) were founded as trusts and quickly became self-governing and self-renewing organisations. In contrast, the madarsas in West Asia soon turned into intellectual backwaters. The author feels that unless these handicaps are removed, there is little chance for Islamic countries to become as prosperous as the West.

Prof Kuran also focuses on Islamic laws concerning business partnerships and inheritance. He argues that these came in the way of the growth of modern industrial corporations. The incidence of polygamy among the wealthiest Muslims prevented the process of business consolidation. All these factors made West Asian merchants uncompetitive.

Currently, some Islamic countries might be prospering on petro-dollars. This, however, would not last forever. These nations suffer from gender discrimination, knowledge deficit and lack of well-developed political institutions. The deficiencies are being highlighted in the Human Development Reports brought out by the United Nations and other specialised agencies. One of the common features of such reports is that birth rates in the Islamic countries are far higher than those in the West. Such high birth rates neutralise the efforts to raise the standards of living in Islamic countries.

Given the above historical experience of Islamic countries, the recommendations of the Sachar Committee make little sense. The committee has called for the strengthening of Islamic institutions like waqf. Incidentally, Muslim countries like Turkey have abolished them. When princely states, zamindaris and jagirdaris have been abolished, one fails to understand the reasons for their existence in India. Based on the Sachar Committee’s recommendations, Muslims are now demanding the establishment of a Central Madarsas Board on the lines of CBSE and the acceptance of its certificates for purposes of admission to colleges in the country. The level of education imparted by these institutions can in no way be compared to that provided by the schools affiliated to the CBSE.

Our pseudo-seculars need to read this book.

harbans wrote: Shiv Ji, minor nitpik here. The 1st demand is very simple..'Welcome to the Hotel California' type thing: Accepting Islam really starts with the words: THERE IS NO GOD..but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet.

harbans your statement is technically true.

But if you look at it closely God is actually a fraudulent strawman here. There is a similarity with the empty rhetoric that "Islam is a religion of peace". No such peace exists, the statement is meaningless. Similarly the statement "There is no God but God" (la illah ill allah) is a bogey that only shift the focus away from where the power lies. I will explain.

Every society has laws where the most severe punishments are reserved for crimes that are most disruptive to that society. For example in India a serial killer may get a death sentence, a murderer a life sentence while a traffic offence like jumping a red signal may invite a fine.

But there are some closed, "special" societies that have even more strict rules. For example armies can fight only if all or most of the soldiers can cooperate in the face of a scary battle and use their arms and lay down fire at the enemy that will throw the enemy back. For everyone to cooperate there are some prerequisites and these include absolute discipline and obedience to your superior and the ability to sit is out and not run under fire. If one man panics and runs, a man next to him will copy that and others copy that and an entire battle - or an area of land is lost because of panic started by one man. So armies have some very strict rules about insubordination, lack of discipline and desertion. In the old days desertion meant a bullet in the back. The rule may no longer be written, but if it is done in battle who will know? So if breakdown of your own unity will destroy your group, you will have rules that call for severe punishment. Desertion and indiscipline are serious breaches of code for an army.

Now look at Islam. What invites the smallest punishments and what invites harsh punishments? Let me start with asking what invites a death penalty.

Does murder invite a death penalty in Islam? Not if a kafir is killed for reasons that I will mention below. In such murders it is possible for the murderer to be let off scot free in exchange for blood money. Killing kafirs and letting of murderers are not offences that threaten Islam. Heck even rape is not a big deal.

Does cursing Allah invite a death penalty? No. No sweat to Islam if God is cursed.

But if you are thought to have insulted the Quran or the Prophet it is a death penalty for anyone - Muslim or non Muslim. Islam is built around the two holy pillars Mohammad and Quran. Not God. God is merely a supporting actor. The edifice of islam is threatened by shaking either of those pillars, not by cursing God. Bringing God into it is rubbish that ignorant kafirs like you are likely to do. In Islam there is no way you can even attempt to reach God without attempting to bypass Mohammad or the Quran. And if you attempt that you are dead. But everyone gets fooled by catchphrases like "There is no God but God. Islam is a religion of peace"

Very insightful Even learned maulaners couldn't figure this one out. Normally they claim there are five pillars of Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

These are summarized in the famous Hadith of Gabriel. The Qur'an presents them as a framework for worship and a sign of commitment to the faith.They are (1) the shahada (creed), (2) daily prayers (salat), (3) fasting during Ramadan (sawm), (4) almsgiving (zakāt), and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.

You have decoded them to essentially two and these are not even in the Gabriel hadith.

shiv wrote: In Islam there is no way you can even attempt to reach God without attempting to bypass Mohammad or the Quran. And if you attempt that you are dead. But everyone gets fooled by catchphrases like "There is no God but God. Islam is a religion of peace"

There was this fat old Jihadi Mullah preacher in Pakistan who died few years ago. He claimed he was Agarwal Rajput before he saw the true white light but he said it right that normally Kaffirs wont mind la ilaha illiliah but the real Jihadi tussle is to make kaffirs accept Muhammad as Prophet, or last true Prophet or Man of God. God have been used to provide all sorts of "incentives' to attain the Glory of Mohammad (GOMO). Unwittingly , they have set up a real unachievable goal as common sense dictates
that Man, no matter how great has many shortcomings and cannot be a substitute for God and that human intelligence can be subdued or killed.
http://www.shantisadan.org/specials/srt.htm
SWAMI RAMA TIRTHA’S MEETING WITH THE MUSLIMS

ramana wrote: Normally they claim there are five pillars of Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

These are summarized in the famous Hadith of Gabriel. The Qur'an presents them as a framework for worship and a sign of commitment to the faith.They are (1) the shahada (creed), (2) daily prayers (salat), (3) fasting during Ramadan (sawm), (4) almsgiving (zakāt), and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.

You have decoded them to essentially two and these are not even in the Gabriel hadith.

ramana these five pillars again are strawmen. They are "minor details" that can be ignored or broken and are broken regularly. All these minor details are rules that kick in after you say "Ok I accept Mohammad and Prophet of God and Quran as God's word". And this has to be unquestioning acceptance. No negotiation. No adjustment Those two rules cannot be broken without inviting a death penalty with no "pay your way out" escape clause. Everything else is chai biskoot.

And when we move on to the topic of idol worship, we read accounts of Islamic raiders destroying the idol at Somnath or the Taliban destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas. These Einsteins believed that others worship idols and that they do not. But tell me if the worship of a physical object is idol worship, then why get worked up if a copy of the Quran is desecrated? A physical copy of the Quran is worshipped in exactly the same was as non Muslims might worship idols. Only they believe that this is not idol worship. So this "no idol worship" business is also another example of balderdash.

No one is allowed to look at the Quran and say anything without some other peaceful Muslim killing him or threatening to kill him. Quran is out of bounds. The Prophet is out of bounds. Anything else is fine and has a price.

shiv has some great posts in here! I enjoyed reading the insight.
Super!

Shiv ji, i think the points you mention people are aware. I've been mentioning these years here too now and have read the Koran/ Ahadith a decade and more back. You can abuse Khuda but not Mohammed or the Koran..is well known in the villages in North India at least. Also significantly the statement is 'There is no God but Allah..' and not there is no God but God..' Changes context.

I wish we could tweet Shiv's post on the twin pillars of Islam.

Harbans, I am sure you might have made similar statements but not as effective as shiv.

Le his posts stand by themselves without bandwagoning.

ba khuda diwaana basho, ba Mohammed hoshiar!

— “say what you like about God, but beware of what you say about Mohammed

shiv wrote:God is merely a supporting actor.

Allah is a supporting actor, but an important one. In those days the pre-Islamic "Jahils" used to worship, besides the Moon god Allah, other gods named al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. So "no god but Allah" really means "if you worship Al-lat, al-Uzza or Manat then you are a Kaffir".

Harbans, I am sure you might have made similar statements but not as effective as shiv.

Agreed. But that's why i stressed in my previous post too that Islam begins with 'There is NO GOD..', it's replacement is not "There is NO GOD but GOD"..but "There is no God but Allah...".

The Sabeans in Arabia worshiped the Moon God who married the Sun Godless who gave birth to 3 Goddesses. They were Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. Idols in the Mecca and were worshiped throughout that part as the Daughters of Allah. The beginning and end of Ramadan are with the Moon crescent. Mohammed appropriated 'Allah" from the Pagan lore. That's why the stress will always be on the Doctrine and not God itself. The Doctrine creates the fear in blaspheming the Koran or Mohammed.

Fear of Islamism is rooted and spread in opposing these 2 pillars. Practise of Islam itself is rooted in the 5.

harbans wrote:Shiv ji, i think the points you mention people are aware. I've been mentioning these years here too now and have read the Koran/ Ahadith a decade and more back. You can abuse Khuda but not Mohammed or the Koran..is well known in the villages in North India at least. Also significantly the statement is 'There is no God but Allah..' and not there is no God but God..' Changes context.

I find Harbans post as the most significant. This is really good. 'There is no God but Allah..'

AcharyaJi thanks. Initiation to Islam starts with the words.."There is no God...". The color of the flag of Islam is not Green but Black. Thats the flag Mohammed and his men rode into Battle..that's the color of the Turban of the Taliban. That's the reason deep inside many are 'Islamophobes' as we are accustomed to thinking Black represents Darkness, lack of light..enlightenment.

harbans wrote: 'There is NO GOD..', it's replacement is not "There is NO GOD but GOD"..but "There is no God but Allah...".

The word for God in Arabic is Allah. So technically "La illah il Allah" means there is no Allah but Allah. It literally means there is no God but God. That is how it s translated by secular minded people who do not want to point out that the meaning of the sentence is also "there is no God but Allah". It also means "there is no Allah but God"

But I think the meaning is that the only name for God is Allah. But there is piskology here.

By saying "There is no God other than Allah" in the beginning of every prayer the indicator is "We realise that people have Gods by other names/identities, but we do not recognise that. Allah is the only God and Mohammad is his prophet.

The interesting thing to me is the five times a day reinforcement of this message - almost as if Allah will be forgotten if that message is not reinforced five times a day "God's name is Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet". There are two items of information there which makes me wonder, if Mohammad is not some God's Prophet, would that God be a God at all? Clearly no. But could that God be called Allah? No again. So God is defined by association with Mohammad. The Prophet Mohammad defines Islam more than God. But I ask you, can any God exist without association with Mohammad? No? Then what is the need to define God by association with his prophet? Can't Allah have an identity and power of his own without Mohammad?

I don't post this as mere rhetorical arguments. These details define behavior and attitudes in Islam. The discussion moved on here because of the need to define "moderate Islam" or "moderate Muslim". Islam has no "moderate" and "immoderate" versions. Then why is it that commentators and news media often refer to "radical interpretation of Islam" or "Moderate Muslims"? Can Islam be interpreted in different way describable as "radical" or "moderate"?

What makes anyone believe that Islam is open to interpretation of it is immutable and unchangeable? What is the thing that is "interpreted to make Islam "severe" or "Radical". Is it the Quran?

shiv wrote:The discussion moved on here because of the need to define "moderate Islam" or "moderate Muslim".

This thread is simply to be a repository of incidences of Islamism and Islamophobia outside the Indian Subcontinent.

No deep level analysis, no core issue analysis, no root cause analysis need to be undertaken here. No Indic PoV on Islam needs to expressed here. This thread is purely to tell everybody all the wonderful instances when pure Islam rears its head in the world or when somebody somewhere gets turned off by whole Islam and starts pushing back. That is all. It is to show the people, how fcuked up the whole interaction between Islam-pasand people and non-Muslims has become in the wider-world (even far away from Indian shores)!

If one starts discussions here beyond that, at some point one will overstep the tolerance levels and then this thread will be shut.

This thread is simply television. Get yourself popcorn and entertain yourselves. When somebody again draws Mohammed Cartoons in the world, then please come and revisit. Best to shut off thinking here!

Deep analysis be taken elsewhere! Those who feel the urge to discuss and analyse Islam, please start a new thread "Understanding Islam" and have fun there.

There are two items of information there which makes me wonder, if Mohammad is not some God's Prophet, would that God be a God at all? Clearly no. But could that God be called Allah? No again. So God is defined by association with Mohammad. The Prophet Mohammad defines Islam more than God. But I ask you, can any God exist without association with Mohammad? No? Then what is the need to define God by association with his prophet? Can't Allah have an identity and power of his own without Mohammad?

Excellently made point Shiv ji. No easy answers..or may be the answers are really too simple but not palatable to many.

Very interesting posts Shiv Ji, but maybe Rajesh Ji has a point. We can continue elsewhere.

Yes, RajeshA has a point. Please continue elsewhere...

shiv wrote:There are two items of information there which makes me wonder, if Mohammad is not some God's Prophet, would that God be a God at all? Clearly no. But could that God be called Allah? No again. So God is defined by association with Mohammad. The Prophet Mohammad defines Islam more than God. But I ask you, can any God exist without association with Mohammad? No? Then what is the need to define God by association with his prophet? Can't Allah have an identity and power of his own without Mohammad?

Shiv ji, they have the subtle concept of shafa'at (intercession). God is equal to all humans, but some humans attain a rank of closeness to God, and these people can be "intercessors" for other spiritual aspirants. To approach God "through" a human being (living or dead) is called tawassul. However, the Qur'an always treats tawassul with a double negative, i.e., it says "it is not forbidden". So it is not a positive recommendation, but it is "indicated" obliquely via association. This applies to Muhammad (pbuh) too (as in Qur'an 18:110).

Does cursing Allah invite a death penalty? No. No sweat to Islam if God is cursed.

Here its not the Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat alone in works. Islam developed while there were other religions worshipping the same God namely, Christianity, Jewish, Samaratian, Bahai etc in the region. So it is essential that you identify the message with the messenger. Thats why the stress on Muhammed (PBUH) and his message
(Holy Quran) and not God alone

shiv wrote: No one is allowed to look at the Quran and say anything without some other peaceful Muslim killing him or threatening to kill him. Quran is out of bounds. The Prophet is out of bounds. Anything else is fine and has a price.

And that is why Ahmediyas have it so bad, even worse then the kafirs. Is it?

These Ahemediya jamuras have 'twisted' both the quran and the prophet. You just wait till you experience the hate against the Ahmediyas. It leave the same kind of thoughts in your mind that you have after you first kill the mouse in the lab.

harbans wrote:

There are two items of information there which makes me wonder, if Mohammad is not some God's Prophet, would that God be a God at all? Clearly no. But could that God be called Allah? No again. So God is defined by association with Mohammad. The Prophet Mohammad defines Islam more than God. But I ask you, can any God exist without association with Mohammad? No? Then what is the need to define God by association with his prophet? Can't Allah have an identity and power of his own without Mohammad?

Excellently made point Shiv ji. No easy answers..or may be the answers are really too simple but not palatable to many.

Very interesting posts Shiv Ji, but maybe Rajesh Ji has a point. We can continue elsewhere.

There was an article by a Paki (IIRC Dawn 2009 time frame) on the eve of Eid who explained this very nicely.

A muslim can ridicule and question Allah, but he can never doubt Muhammed. A muslim need not be devoted to Allah and will answer allah after death; but he has to submit his property, wife, children and his soul to Muhammed.

This reminds me of a comment I made when I was young in 1994. Islam is not even a religion, it is just a dangerous cult. It has to be dealt the same way SD dealt with uncivilized cults of their times.

It has to be dealt the same way SD dealt with uncivilized cults of their times.

Is that possible without deviating from the path shown by Gandhiji?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... -GV9_TK3gE

Roler Vs Roper

Saudi Clerics: Women Will Turn Gay If They Drive

Religious leaders in Saudi Arabia hope to make an example of a woman recently caught driving — illegal in the Muslim nation — and she could receive 10 lashes, all because some believe women taking the wheel will become promiscuous or gay.

Lacking any other form of transportation, Shaima Jastaniya drove to the hospital earlier this year before being arrested by Saudi police. While she was initially sentenced to a brutal whipping, the Saudi king pardoned her after a global outcry. But a local court recently informed Jastaniya that her sentencing will stand. While Jastaniya appeals that verdict, many fear ultraconservative clerics within the Saudi government want to make her an example.

Some Saudi men believe that allowing women to drive will lead to prostitution, p0rn0graphy, divorce, and homosexuality. The highest Saudi religious council and conservative professors at King Fahd University have stated that granting women the right to drive will mean there will be no more female virgins in the country. Saudi Arabia is the only country that doesn't allow female drivers.

Sushupti wrote:

It has to be dealt the same way SD dealt with uncivilized cults of their times.

Is that possible without deviating from the path shown by Gandhiji?

Not necessarily. Gandhiji demanded Ahimsa only from Yindoos. We are not Yindus but Aadityas.

Secondly Gandhiji did not deny himsa by Adhaarmics. So we ensure that Adhaarmics will see lot of himsa.

The Mohammadden religion sanctioned exploitation of adherents of other religions on disgusting display.

Fatwa Permits Mujahideen to Kidnap, Imprison, and Have Sexual Intercourse with Infidel Women:

MEMRI

Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims' - Dailymail.co.uk

Judge: 'Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I'm going to suspend the sentence'

Islamic Cleric rules Women should be banned from touching and seeing Banana;s

Does this belong to BENIS?

What happens when you insult even the companions of the Prophet in KSA - can any man survive 500 lashes?

An Australian man has been sentenced to 500 lashes and a year in a Saudi Arabian jail after being convicted of blasphemy, officials said Wednesday.

The 45-year-old man, identified by family members as Mansor Almaribe of southern Victoria state, was detained in the holy city of Medina last month while making the Muslim pilgrimage of hajj. Family members told Australian media that Saudi officials accused him of insulting the companions of the Prophet Muhammad

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-senten ... 45608.html

ranjbe wrote:What happens when you insult even the companions of the Prophet in KSA - can any man survive 500 lashes?

An Australian man has been sentenced to 500 lashes and a year in a Saudi Arabian jail after being convicted of blasphemy, officials said Wednesday.

The 45-year-old man, identified by family members as Mansor Almaribe of southern Victoria state, was detained in the holy city of Medina last month while making the Muslim pilgrimage of hajj. Family members told Australian media that Saudi officials accused him of insulting the companions of the Prophet Muhammad

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-senten ... 45608.html

The Shiite Muslim was initially sentenced to two years in jail and 500 lashes but then reduced the sentence to one year and 500 lashes.

His being Shia probably had a lot to do with the charge and sentence. His not being able to survive the lashes beyond a year has to do with the "leniency".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/austra ... 6215942843

harbans wrote:Islamic Cleric rules Women should be banned from touching and seeing Banana;s

Does this belong to BENIS?

The fear is that they will all start craving for the Green Martians!

Muslims don't kill Muslims of course. Only Islamophobia would make anyone say otherwise

What a bunch of losers - with love from Pakistan

RamaY wrote:

Kabul suicide attack on Shias. Look at the small children

No one to lead Christmas prayers as J&K pastor leaves Valley

If this happenned anywhere else in India, does one think the NDTV's and CNN-IBN's will keep such stone dead silence on the subject???

Aditya_V wrote:No one to lead Christmas prayers as J&K pastor leaves Valley

If this happenned anywhere else in India, does one think the NDTV's and CNN-IBN's will keep such stone dead silence on the subject???

Ignoring this is not secularism but pseudo-secularism, which is hidden under sham-secularism( cover that hides pseudos and claimed as secularism) by the corrupt sold out media.

If media deals with this as with any other even in which Hindus were involved, the real face of pseudos and twisted mentality will be out. The fangs will be out in no time and the pseudos real place in the society will be known.

Which is also part of silence. 2 khota sikka onlee.