DEALING WITH ISLAM

DEALING WITH ISLAM

S.Prasadh

The extraordinary amount of violence that is perpetrated by Muslims at the rest of the world must make any member of the human race wonder. Chechnya, Kashmir, southern Thailand, New York, Paris, Madrid, Bali, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Kenya and many other places around the world have been plagued by violence at the hands of Muslims. Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, and anyone else who is not a Muslim is not immune from Islamic violence. The goal of Islam has been the same since the days of Muhammad: world domination by any means necessary.

So what is a nonmuslim to do when faced with such a threat? For starters, one could become a Muslim. This would indeed safeguard one’s life (although Muslims do perpetrate violence against other Muslims), however, nonmuslims see Islam as false, that is why they are not Muslims.

Second, one could try to reason with Muslims, thereby making them less violent Muslims. One could even go so far as to lead a Muslim away from Islam all together, thereby having one less human with a convert-or-die mentality. These options have encountered some success, although, their success is far from enough to stem the tide of Islamic violence.

A third option is to do nothing. This has not worked in the past and will eventually lead to Islam becoming the only religion of the world.

There is, however, a third option. It is the least pretty of all the options and it’s the one all the other options are trying to avoid. Simply put, it is meeting violence with violence. Fighting back seems to be the only option left when confronted by an enemy that will not stop.

This option is more ugly than people may first think, for this war is not a battle over land or a point on a map that must be conquered; it is a war of attrition. There are over one billion Muslims in the world today and most people cannot fathom killing that many individuals. The idea is reprehensible, but it may be inevitable. Islam has been violently clashing with everything not Islam since there has been an Islam. How many more people must die? How many more lands must fall into Muslim hands before the rest of the world realizes Islam is after the entire world? Islam will not stop itself, plain and simple. It is more than willing to use violence to achieve its objective, as history has demonstrated time and time again.

There is a word for cultures that are not able, or are unwilling, to fight Muslim invaders: extinct. The reason why Christians are still around today, and Zoroastrians are not, is because Christians were able to defeat Muslim invaders in Spain and central Europe. If there is another to stop Islam from being violent, please let the world know.

This proposal may seem extreme, but what else is one to do in the face of such fanaticism? Islam started this war, that is unless you really believe Islam spread from Morocco to India in 100 years fighting battles only in defense. The “terrorists” are simply taking Islam to its logical, philosophical conclusion. Peaceful Muslims do exist, but they are peaceful despite the Koran and the example set forth by Muhammad. Islam cannot be reformed because at its heart it is violent. Jihadists are simply the truer, more devout Muslims.

The rest of the world seems to be fairly content for people to keep the religion their choosing. Some religions do engage in dialogue and debate with other religions but that is it; they do not kill others in order to subdue them. If Islam wishes to establish itself through violence, then let the rest of the world use violence to bring it down. It may be cynical to think that Islamic violence will stop only when no Muslims are around, but what in human history would lead nonmuslims to believe otherwise? One enormous clash with Islam seems better than a series of endless skirmishes, wars, acts of terrorism, etc. Until Islam ceases to be Islam, violence seems to be the only option left in keeping the world from Islamic domination.

Built In Misunderstanding

Built In Misunderstanding

S. Prasad

Recently, there have been many articles written (mostly by Muslims) decrying a general lack of understanding of Islam by Christians. While both Christians and Muslims are guilty of ignorance, there is an inherent problem with any Muslim-Christian dialogue. There is a built in misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity within the pages of the Koran.

Surah 5:116 states, In this verse, Allah asks a question of Jesus that implies Christians (no one else worships Jesus) uphold Mary to be a god. If not, then why does Allah ask the question at all, if Allah does not believe any Mary worshipping group ever existed?

This is not the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is one being with three equal persons/personages all having the same divine substance. One God in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. Mary is nowhere to be found in this doctrine. Christians do not, and have not, ever believed Mary is a god. Even if there were a group of people calling themselves Christians that had Allah, Jesus, and Mary in their Trinity (and there never has been) this group would not be representative of Christianity. This false Trinity goes against the Bible and historic Christian teaching. How would Muslims react if Christians took a teaching from the Nation of Islam and upheld it as a true Islamic teaching?

Even in the index of my own Koran (translation), given to me by a Muslim organization, the scholar/translator Abdullah Yusef Ali puts Surah 5:116 under the heading, “Trinity, doctrine of, rejected.” So it seems that even Yusef Ali perceives the Koran in the same way that I perceive it here. In addition, the Koran falsely charges Jews with calling Ezra (Uzayr) a, “son of Allah” (Surah 9:30), something Jews have never done.

Simply put, the Koran misunderstands the Trinity. The implications of this should be obvious. First, it shows the Koran to be in error, which presents a major problem(s) for Islam. Second, it gives a major incentive for a Muslim to misunderstand/misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity. If a Muslim were to come to a true understanding of the Trinity (I am not saying to believe in it, but to just accurately understand it), his/her proper understanding would contradict the Koran’s understanding of it.

In a Muslim-Christian dialogue, an accurate understanding of probably the most important belief in Christianity is sabotaged by the Koran. How can these two groups truly talk with each other, and not past each other, if the Koran inaccurately portrays the beliefs of Christians? How can Muslims seriously expect Christians, or anyone else, to make the effort to understand their beliefs when the holy book of Islam inaccurately represents the largest religion in the world? Unfortunately, on the contentious issue of the Trinity, Muslims and Christians will continue to talk past each other . . . and the Koran is to blame

ARE YOU A CONFUSED KAFIR?

ARE YOU A CONFUSED KAFIR?
S.Prasadh

I am a born Hindu. Four years back I started to develop a strange obsession to Islam. This made me to research on Islamic traditions and prayer methodologies. I learnt the verses by-heart and started to practice praying everyday and in fact I aped myself as a Muslim male by having a beard without moustache. It became more of a psychological disease that I started to lose my original character. I viewed everything in terms of HALAL and HARAM, KUFFARS and MUSLIMS. I had strong and blind IMAN on Allah and his religion. The funniest thing to note is, I never knew the history of Mohammed. Nor did I know what he actually preached! But anyhow after 3 long years I gained enough knowledge about Muhammad and chose to quit Islam. At a point I was brainwashed by my friend that Islam meant peace. I never even knew that Islam meant submission to Allah! I had so much of disdain for Hinduism that I never visited a temple or kneeled before any idol for the last 5 years. The fundamental reasons behind my scorn to my birth religion are:

1. Hindus had numerous idols and family idols.
2. Hindus had caste system.
3. Hindus have several scriptures and not a unitary source of reference.
4. Hindus have weak faith in idols anyway and ultimately preach one GOD.
5. Hindus don’t have a personal law and mostly they are more prone to change.

Note the aforementioned reasons carefully. It might not be news to you( I mean whoever is reading this ; I am giving TAFSIR for your understanding , wherever necessary J ) , but anyhow they are very much valid when the reasoning is abstract. These are some of the most important points that are shot at KAFIRS to convert them to ISLAM. The extremity of monotheism is used to satisfy people like me by Muslims. Who will not love to have a single centralized source of reference and authority? It looks more organized. But note an important aspect ISLAM here, the advantage ends just there. When your thinking is wider and abstract ISLAM seems to be the ideal religion. But when you switch to the deep and logical mode of thinking, ISLAM transforms to IS-LAME! That is what exactly happened to me a few months ago. Before rigidly getting into Islam I used to bow when prayers are going on in mosque, as if I bow to a temple, and I do the same to a church. When I do that I get a feeling of affinity that makes me bond with people of all faiths. This is what I was when I was a Hindu. But the moment I became a Muslim I learnt to reject other faiths, confuse others if I cannot convince them, believe that Muhammad saved the mankind. That is the impact of ISLAM on human psychology. The doctrine has been designed in such a way as to amazingly affect your mindset and quickly kill your rationale. All praises to Muhammad. If religions were products, then he was the best marketer. Though I learnt a lot about him that reflects, more often of his negative side, I take a few traits of his to hone my managerial skills. He can be called a purple cow amongst ordinary white cows! Though a purple cow is non-existent and can’t give milk, it is attractive at the first sight. Islam, the brainchild of Muhammad, creates a great first impression which is hard to be erased. A few points to be noted for the prolific success of ISLAM and the abstract view of ISLAM given to confusedKAFIRS by people like Dr.Zakir Naik are briefly explained below :

1. When confusion, polytheism, unorganized religions existed… this man Muhammad brought in his theory of monotheism with a stronger essence.

2. ISLAM is the only religion that began to claim about its readings with vigorous energy. ISLAM says it has science in QURAN. I don’t speak as a Hindu here, but the credit has to be given to VEDAS which were written by ordinary humans but had much more substance to it (especially science). The whole world respects AYURVEDA a medical branch founded by Hindus. Please point out one such famous medical branch from ISLAM? This shows ALLAH is less brainier than the ordinary sages who found AYURVEDA.

3. ISLAM mimicked the ideas of GALEN,ARABS and THALES. Still we have charismatic speakers and writers who claim QURAN is a miracle. Quran never uses a scientific term to be called as science. Does it use any word that exactly describes the formation of universe? It simply says Allah separated earth and heavens in a very general terminology. But it is the argumentative capability of Muslim showmen to efficiently instill the thought in you that QURAN is science!.

4. To attack Christianity ISLAM very wisely called JESUS as a messenger of ALLAH and said ISLAM respected him. I can find no Muslim in my country utter a word about JESUS while praying. Infact ignorant wannabe Muslims think QURAN speaks truth. The reported birth of JESUS was in a cattle shed. Quran says he was born under a palm tree and Allah shook a palm tree to give dates for the tired Mother Mary after delivery.

5. Every wannabe Muslim thinks that QURAN is word of GOD. Now friends have you ever noted the tense and way of addressing in QURAN? You can find that all the verses are not spoken in first person. Some are in second and third too. That proves either it was not GOD-given or QURAN was tampered with.

6. A confused Kafir might think “Anyhow atleast ISLAM brought light to women”. Is it? Think again ! Islam claims to have brought remarriage for widows and destitutes. If that is the case how come The first wife of Muhammad , Khadija , was married twice before she married Muhammad? Islam says it brought inheritance to Female Kids. How come Khadija had her paternal property and her own business? Purdah/Hijab … you think that elevates women’s status by preventing molestation? That means ISLAM implicitly degrades Muslim men as perverts and molesters, because when a male is decent you can be confident enough to be without a PURDAH. Have you ever thought how this law came into existence? Briefly it came into existence when Muhammed’s wife Zainab was admired by the visitors to Muhammad’s house for his marriage buffet. He was pissed off and he pretended as if a revelation came to him for veiling women! Understand confused Kafirs.

7. To attack HINDUISM , Muslims adopted this theory of height of spirituality to the one and only almighty. Have you read the QURAN verse by verse? Have you read the Bhagavad gita which means GOD’s Song? Have a comparison between the values it teaches and infer for yourself which teaches spirituality. You can find several people finding fault with the QURAN. Why no one is doing the same with Bhagavad Gita? Does that make it a GOD’s own book? No. It means whatever its sources are, it teaches good. Have oyu ever noticed that Gita says Soul can neither be created nor be destroyed? It implicitly means ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR BE DESTROYED which was founded by Einstein. Infact he praised the Gita . How many of you are aware of this? Does that mean we can claim HINDUISM is science?!?! They add to it saying that Hinduism believed in imaginary rakshasas and other myths. Muslims inclusing their prophet believed in JINNS( GENIES, probably the one that appeared to ALLADIN and his wonder lamp) and they believed that ants spoke and birds fought for Abraham! Read the Quran. Islam is no exception in superstition!

8. Last but never the least, ISLAM was mostly spread by sword. This is a renowned fact. If you want to know more about this you can visit www.historyofjihad.org .Its founder cum prophet cum leader too preached violence against disbelievers. The proofs are available in faithfreedom.org , answering-islam.org , refuting-islam.tk , and several other websites.

I would like to tell you CONFUSED KAFIRS ( I mean wannabe Muslims) to scrutinize the authenticity of the religion called ISLAM. Have you ever noted that

It is the abrahamic faiths that are clashing? Hindus and Buddhists mostly stay cool!

Many such claims are being made by Muslims and most of them are void. Common reply by someone trying to brainwash you would be : “ He is a misguided person and that is why he left islam. Come to the truth and go to jannah… ALLAH is our creator…and inshALLAH you would become a mufti oneday…the rewards for a muslim is great. Muhammad is our prophet and he was a role model for every human. He was patient, tolerant, peaceful, loving, respected women…” . Infact some people go upto the extent of saying that “ You have provision to marry upto 4 females.” Have you ever thought about this -à Had ALLAH been GOD or had Muhammad been his messenger… why should ALLAH tell ordinary powerless humans to do Da’wah(inviting to islam) ??? If ALLAH created us then why should ALLAH call you KAFIRS and segregate you from his list of heaven entries? Will a creator of everything fight against KUFFARS with Muslims? If your monitor becomes obsolete, you sell it off and the buyer repairs it and sells it again. Even waste materials are recycled and not destroyed. But ALLAH orders muslims to destroy disbelievers. So is ALLAH worse than a human? Imagine. The Quran actually portrays ALLAH(GOD) like a blood thirsty buccaneer and a don with many henchmen(Muslims/Mujahideens/Jihadis) to threaten the opposing people. How can GOD order the killing of his own creation? God could have never said that! Wake up confused-Kafir and stick to your common sense. Nothing is beyond common sense and if anything that is beyond common sense and logic, then it is supposed to be called NON-SENSE!

“Something is better than Nothing. But Nothing is better than Non-Sense!”

S.Prasadh

Kargil War - Pakistani Army surrenders and accepts bodies

Death Penalty for Apostate !!!

Will Non-Muslims be allowed to preach their religion?

Sura 9:5 And Islamic Polemics.

Sura 9:5 And Islamic Polemics.

peaceforever

I had visited the forum of a muslim friend, Rizzwan, whom I met in the internet. He started a topic Sura 9 - verse 29 [does the Qu'ran promote killing?]

and asked the following

This topic is to discuss the English translation of the verses 29 in Sura 9 (Qu'ran) Qu'ran Sura 9, - verse 29 (Yusafi Ali translation) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "

One muslim, aishah_al_amatullah, responded with a apologetic refutation that the “quran doesn’t promote violence”. I visited his forum took note of it and promised a refutation of what friend aishah_al_amatullah had written. But due to many issues which occupied me I wasn’t able to come up with a refutation any sooner. But I knew that I have read her explanation somewhere. And a word search revealed that it wasn’t our muslim friends own explanation but as usual a copy/paste of someone else’s work without due respect to the original author. Going a step further putting it up as if it is his/her own, work! What else did he/she mean by “I am going to use a seperate example of similar writing.”?

What makes it even worse is the fact that their in no truth in the work that had been copy/pasted, it is has deliberate lies spewed allover it, logical fallacies. The real author has gone all-out to deliberately misinform his readers with an aim. So who is the real author? He is a hero of many muslims at FFI, And I am sorry that I am going to rip of the tag from the charlatan! He is none other than Dr. Zakir Naik. The page from which this polemic has been taken up, should have been updated and it contains a small portion not put up by aishah_al_amatullah, it may be also due to the fact that quoting that part was not really necessary. Dr. Zakir Naik accuses the critics of Islam of misquoting the Quran, taking verses out of context … But as usual it will be evident it was he is the person who had misquoted and taken the Quran out of context. I think I have bored the readers enough with my introduction, let us get started with the refutation of Zakir.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

Question: Doesn’t Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur’an says that Muslims should kill the kuffar where ever they find them? Answer: A few selected verses from the Qur’an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

RESPONSE:

As I had mentioned above Zakir accuses the critics for misquotations taken out of the context in which it was revealed and we will see it is not true. Zakir also tries to alleviate the accusation on the Quran by saying that only a few selected verses of the quran can be used to show Islam promotes violence which is completely untrue. Actually the contrary is true, there are only a few verses (in fact, three verse) in the entire Quran that doesn’t promote terrorism rather talks about peace, that too completely ignoring the context in which the verses where revealed. (Time permitting I plan to expose the islamists on these verses from the Quran) Some how these muslims seem to forget their own criterion when it suits them the most, I mean the context!

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

1. Verse from Surah Taubah The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality: "Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them." [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

RESPONSE:

Unfortunately for Zakir the contrary will be proven and he will be exposed for his deliberate lies!

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

2. Context of verse is during battlefield Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful." [Al-Qur’an 9:5] This verse is quoted during a battle.

RESPONSE:

Zakir here appeals to the context of the verse but fails us to show any reliable material to support the position. Hence all that has been presented is nothing but misinformation spewed at the unsuspecting readers. What he is basically saying is the verse 9:5 was during the war with the Meccans because they violated a peace treaty with their prophet. Though he provides no reference to verify who violated the peace treaty the major error is that he got the entire context completely wrong, or did he?

Muslims go around claiming that Zakir is a man of great knowledge regarding Islam. He will expose Ali Sina and probably that’s the reason Ali Sina is not accepting a public debate. Well we all know why Ali Sina refuses a public debate which could put his entire life in jeopardy. In fact Zakir has been the one who has refused to engage in a written debate with Ali Sina even after repeated requests and has brought some irrelevant conditions to stall the process! Anyways Ali has exposed the charlatan once and for all.

Back to the issue at hand Zakir says that the verse 9:5 is related to Muhammad’s war with Meccans. Let me ask the Muslims and non-muslims alike, can a man touted to be so knowledgeable about Islam be unaware of the real context of this verse? If this isn’t the real context then what else is? Let us see.

The chronology of this verse is mentioned in Yusuf Ali’s Quran, The more popular among English Qurans. Ali states page 435, that verses 1-29 were revealed during the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9, and read by Ali out loud to the various pilgrims in Mecca two months later to give Muhammad’s NEW POLICY a wide hearing.

So what is amiss here? Can you get it?

Muhammad had conquered Mecca in A.H. 8, a full year prior!

Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's in his Chapter Introductions to the Qur'an states regarding Surah AT-TAUBAH.

Conquest of Arabia

…..He made a sudden invasion on Makkah in the month of Ramadan in A. H. 8 and conquered it….. (online source)

Previously he mentions about the chronology of the verses, as follows:

Discourses and Periods of Revelation

This Surah comprises three discourses:-

The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka'abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.

So here we have the true color of Zakir Naik an outright liar! Hiding himself in the name of a scholar in comparative religion and spewing deliberate misinformation on unsuspecting readers, muslims and non-muslims alike! Since when did A. H. 8 become A. H. 9? (online source)

And Tafsir Ibn Kathir says:

The first part of this honorable Surah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah when he returned from the battle of Tabuk, during the Hajj season, which the Prophet thought about attending. But he remembered that the idolators would still attend that Hajj, as was usual in past years, and that they perform Tawaf around the House while naked. He disliked to associate with them and sent Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, to lead Hajj that year and show the people their rituals, commanding him to inform the idolators that they would not be allowed to participate in Hajj after that season. He commanded him to proclaim,

﴿بَرَآءَةٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ﴾

(Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger ()...), to the people. When Abu Bakr had left, the Messenger sent `Ali bin Abu Talib to be the one to deliver this news to the idolators on behalf of the Messenger , for he was the Messenger's cousin. We will mention this story later.

Muhammad grew in strength after the Fall of Mecca became even stronger than he was prior to it and his hatred on the unbelievers grew, as Ibn Kathir says “He disliked to associate with them (idolators)”

And here is one of the many Al-Bukhari testifies to this fact:

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 179

Narrated Humaid bin Abdur Rahman:

Abu Huraira said, "Abu Bakr sent me in that Hajj in which he was the chief of the pilgrims along with the announcers whom he sent on the Day of Nahr to announce at Mina: "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year, and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state." Humaid added: That the Prophet sent 'Ali bin Abi Talib (after Abu Bakr) and ordered him to recite aloud in public Surat-Baraa. Abu Huraira added, "So 'Ali, along with us, recited Bara'a (loudly) before the people at Mina on the Day of Nahr and announced "No pagan shall perform Hajj after this year and none shall perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba in a naked state."..except those pagans with whom you (Muslims) have a treaty." (9.4) (online source)

And In the light of the following, as concluding remark I have to correct the egregious lie perpetuated by Zakir stating “Context of verse is during battlefield”, since when did the pilgrimage to Mecca become the battle field? And state that the “Context of the verse was during time of peace and not during the battle field”

I will have to say more on this latter.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

3. Example of war between America and Vietnam We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

RESPONSE:

I am sorry Zakir, you can’t build on with the bubble you tried you create in the previous point! I burst that bubble right on your face!

Anyways, this argument of Zakir is a blatant Tu-Quoque, it’s rather sad that you muslims can’t defend your cult without pointing your fingers on others. Going by the lines of your wild imagination, how does the Action of an American president acquit your prophet? How do two wrongs make a thing right?

As it is Zakir’s Ad-hoc explanation is a mere hypothetical situation. Can he bring me such a quote from an American president? Does Zakir Naik wants all of us to believe that Americans are the ultimate benchmark of moral actions in war and any actions attributed to them must be accepted?

First of all, Zakir Naik has to understand that no American president ever said such a thing to my knowledge and if any would be guilty of saying such a thing he/she would have been tried as a war criminal. And at no time during the Vietnam War did the Americans want the all Vietnamese to be killed; the war was not against the innocent people of Vietnam blood but against the communists who tried to take over the Government. Killing innocent people wasn’t the aim of the war. Though many atrocities took place, the intention was not to kill Vietnamese wherever they find them unlike the sick intentions of Muhammad.

And what is the point over here? This was not war but Muhammad is warning the nonbelievers to convert to Islam or face a painful doom!

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

RESPONSE:

Parroting a lie doesn’t make it true, all Zakir has managed to show is how willingly he misleads his readers and repeats a lie over and over; of course this verse is to boost the morale of the Muslims to go kill the non muslims! But not during a battle as Zakir claims. I hadalready documented the context; here is a addition to this.

Ibn Kathir writes on verse 9:5, page 375:

"But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its ruling and obligations.

On verse 9:5, page 376:

So when the sacred months have passed… meaning, "Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them…

On verse 9:5, page 377:

This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.

Clearly 9:5 was verse which had broader consequences and aims asking muslims to be in a state of war with Non-Muslims.

Muhammad had made his intentions clearly as the following hadith testifies:

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635,online source)

Then he goeson to accuse the critcs of Islam.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7 Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.

RESPONSE:

What can I say? The irony is clear. Some one who deliberately misleads his readers (including many ignorant muslims), is pointing out the antics of others. I am not saying that Zakir shouldn't be pointing out the smoke screens of others but shouldn't he be cleaning his own house before pointing his fingers on his counterpart?

And Zakir owes an explanation to any sensible Muslim or Non-Muslim on why he deliberately lied regarding the context of the verses?

And Zakir some how thinks that Sura 9:6 helps his case which is unfortunately not so, he proceeds to build his case with verse 9:6 and not without his usual antics and lies deliberately spewed on his readers.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says: "If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur’an 9:6] The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.

RESPONSE:

It is certain to me that Zakir Naik can’t do without lies, are they inseparable Mister?

Let’s analyze the verses:

We have already established that this was not revealed during any battle but during the time of peace.

Muhammad in verse 9:1 says that he is divinely ordained to break any treaty with idolaters as he wills. All he it needs from his part is mere suspicion (that arises to suit his position)

8:58. If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous. ( Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation )

Muhammad can break any treaty fearing mere treachery! And now he goes a step further and puts away this hurdle too and gives himself a free hand!

In 9:2 Muhammad gives all the non-believers a span of four months to submit before him this in tandem with 9:4 allows those non-muslims who had been good terms with muslims by not earning their warth on any account, then the treaty will be observed till the specified time, all other treaties where not valid. Any treaty of others that had a validation period of more than four months was reduced four months and for non-muslims who had no treaty a period of fifty days was given to submit to Muhammad. He would keep those treaties that were for a specified time with tribes that were on friendly terms. However, once those times were complete, a state of war would be in place. Lest I should be accused of misinterpreting the verses like Zakir, here are some views of Islamic scholars:

And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who said regarding Allah's saying: (Freedom from obligation): '(Freedom from obligation) this is freedom from obligation (from Allah and His messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty) but then they broke that treaty; freedom from obligation is the breaking of treaties. Allah says: whosoever has a treaty with the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) let him know that it is broken. Some of them had a treaty lasting four months, and some of more nine months, while others had treaties for longer or shorter periods. Others had no treaty with Allah's Messenger at all. All these treaties were broken except for the treaty with the Banu Kinanah which was for nine months. Whoever had a treaty for more or less than four months, their treaties were ratified to last four month beginning from the day of immolation; and whoever had a treaty of four months, that treaty was ratified to last four months beginning from the day of immolation. Those who had a treaty of nine months, their treaties were left as they were, while those who did not sign any treaty, were granted one of 50 days beginning from the day of immolation until the departure of the person who was in a state of ritual consecration: (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; online source)

And Ibn Kathir says:

Allah said,

﴿بَرَآءَةٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ﴾

(Freedom from obligations from Allah and His Messenger ()), is a declaration of freedom from all obligations from Allah and His Messenger ,

﴿إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَفَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ﴾

(to those of the Mushrikin, with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (Mushrikin) for four months (as you will) throughout the land) ﴿9:1-2﴾. This Ayah refers to idolators who had indefinite treaties and those, whose treaties with Muslims ended in less than four months. The terms of these treaties were restricted to four months only. As for those whose term of peace ended at a specific date later (than the four months), then their treaties would end when their terms ended, no matter how long afterwards, for Allah said,

﴿فَأَتِمُّواْ إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَى مُدَّتِهِمْ﴾

(So fulfill their treaty for them until the end of their term)﴿9:4﴾. So whoever had a coventant with Allah's Messenger then it would last until its period expired

And coming to the verse that Zakir Naik thinks serves his purpose. In the light of the above the verse says to give safe passage to Non-Muslims who have till they hear Allah’s message. If they refuse to accept Islam later on, they will also be killed! Here is what Ibn Kathir says:

Allah said to His Prophet, peace be upon him,

﴿وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ﴾

(And if anyone of the Mushrikin), whom you were commanded to fight and We allowed you their blood and property,'

﴿اسْتَجَارَكَ﴾

(seeks your protection), asked you for safe passage, then accept his request until he hears the Words of Allah, the Qur'an. Recite the Qur'an to him and mention a good part of the religion with which you establish Allah's proof against him,

﴿ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ﴾

(and then escort him to where he can be secure) and safe, until he goes back to his land, his home, and area of safety,

﴿ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ﴾

(that is because they are men who know not.) The Ayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants. Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said that this Ayah, "Refers to someone who comes to you to hear what you say and what was revealed to you (O Muhammad). Therefore, he is safe until he comes to you, hears Allah's Words and then proceeds to the safe area where he came from.'' The Messenger of Allah used to thereafter grant safe passage to those who came to him for guidance or to deliver a message. On the day of Hudaybiyyah, several emissaries from Quraysh came to him, such as `Urwah bin Mas`ud, Mikraz bin Hafs, Suhayl bin `Amr and several others. They came mediating between him and the Quraysh pagans. They witnessed the great respect the Muslims had for the Prophet , which astonished them, for they never before saw such respect for anyone, kings nor czars. They went back to their people and conveyed this news to them; this, among other reasons, was one reason that most of them accepted the guidance. When Musaylimah the Liar sent an emissary to the Messenger of Allah, he asked him, "Do you testify that Musaylimah is a messenger from Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' The Messenger of Allah said,

«لَوْلَا أَنَّ الرُّسُلَ لَا تُقْتَلُ لَضَرَبْتُ عُنُقَك»

(I would have cut off your head, if it was not that emissaries are not killed.) That man, Ibn An-Nawwahah, was later beheaded when `Abdullah bin Mas`ud was the governor of Al-Kufah. When it became known that he still testified that Musaylimah was a messenger from Allah, Ibn Mas`ud summoned him and said to him, "You are not delivering a message now!'' He commanded that Ibn An-Nawwahah be decapitated, may Allah curse him and deprive him of His mercy. In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.

The verse 9:6 refers to people who want to hear of Islam, for the purpose of converting him to Islam and spread its message. But those of who still question Muhammad’s claim to prophethood will be put to sword! As in the above example Ibn An-Nawwahah, the emissary of Musaylimah who was given such a safe passage, but still continued his disbelief in Muhammad and paid off with his head!

Look at the sequence of events, Muhammad becomes more powerful with fall of Mecca and as result decides breaks all treaties he had and decides to keep the ones with the he feels have been friendly with him, we will see who these people are below, and calls for them to submit within four months time.

If we look at who are considered fighting the Muslims, the verse 9:12-13 gives the answer:

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief -- for surely, their oaths are nothing to them -- so that they may stop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first Do you fear them Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers

It says to fight

(a) the people who disobey the covenant. For which there is very little substance from the Islamic sources. In fact, at most times, one will find Muhammad is the person who breaks the treaty citting god’s will and fear of treachery!

(b) Attack islam with disapproval and criticism (as Ibn kathir puts it), slander it (as al-Jalalayn), defame the Religion of Islam (as Ibn Abbas puts it). I can’t see how showing disapproval to islam qualifies as such a grave fault that should be punished with death.

(c) plotted to expel Mohammad; another claim which has not got lot of objective evidence though there are instances of these happening, does it justify an all-out war?

(d) Attacked the Muslims first. This does hold water if it has substance. Ibn Kathir comments:

(while they did attack you first), refers to the battle of Badr when the idolators marched to protect their caravan. When they knew that their caravan escaped safely, they still went ahead with their intent to fight Muslims out of arrogance,

here Ibn kathir himself accepts the idolaters where policing their caravan from the muslims. The Qureysh idolators had sent the army in a policing role to protect the caravan, and to deal with the highway-robber Muslims. The irony here is, caught in this act of stealing; the muslims claim that the police "attacked them first" out of "arrogance"!

How does it fit to the criterion of self defense? Obviously, this fails to fit the self-defense criteria.

Zakir, completely hides this context and puts his own story forward and tries to alleviate the cruelty of the verses by citing 9:6, as if Muhammad never attacked non-muslims for their religion but because they were belligerent towards him. In fact, 9:6 is the most peaceful offer that Muhammad had for the non-muslims. If instead of defending themselves from Muhammad if they were willing to hear to him and get to convince themselves of the so called truth of Islam they are spared or else they are put to sword! And of course at times allowed to live as second class citizens paying Jizyah, which at most times is an option for the people of the book.

Infact Muslims are commaded not to ask for peace when they have an upper hand:

So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. God is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. S. 47:35 Hilali-Khan

Muslims are commanded not to seek peace with the unbelievers, provided that they are the more dominant party! As the tafsir of Ibn Abbas states:

(So do not falter) do not weaken, O believer, upon fighting the disbelievers (and cry out for peace) and it is said this means: for Islam before fighting (when you (will be) the uppermost) when you are the victorious and the ultimate consequence will be in your favour, (and Allah is with you) He helps you to defeat your enemy, (and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions) and He will not diminish the works in which you engage during Jihad. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; online source)

The two renowned Sunni commentators al-Jalalayn agree:

So do not falter, [do not] be weak, and [do not] call for peace (read salm or silm), that is to say, a truce with the disbelievers should you encounter them, when you have the upper hand (al-a'lawna: the third letter of the triliteral root, waw, has been omitted), [when you are] the victors, the vanquishers, and God is with you, helping and assisting, and He will not stint you, diminish you, in [the reward for] your works, that is to say, of the reward for them. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; online source)

Is this the peace of Quran the Zakir wants to tell to us? Zakir has tried to carefully build his arguments by citing war as pretext! But it is not the case as one can see but infact Muhammad goes on to announce his NEW POLICY of No peace with the infidels after the time allotted for them to change their views regarding Islam. Either accept Islam or get killed in war! Note how even the ones didn’t even fit with the asinine criterion (a,b,c,d) that Muhammad made up as a pretext to attack them, where also not spared after the expiry of the peace treaty! And the state of war will come in to place.

I think this enough to show how this great scholar of comparative religion (as per muslims), has deliberately hidden the truth and spewed lies time and again! It is an irony that such a dishonest person wants to debate the pope, a highly acclaimed theologian. One must ask, for what? Is it to spewing more lies?

The verse of sura 9 has clearly been proven to be a violent ultimatum to the Non-Muslim world!

Time permitting I will deal with rest of aishah_al_amatullah's post.

A chilling message for the infidels

A chilling message for the infidels

Just six weeks before last Saturday's terrorist atrocity in Bali, in a jail cell in Jakarta, I interviewed Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), al-Qa'eda's main ally in the region, and the group on which western attention is focused in the hunt for culprits.

Bashir was celebrating the news that an Indonesian court had agreed to reduce his 30-month sentence for conspiracy in the 2002 Bali bombings by more than four months, meaning that he will soon walk free.

Ever since the first bombings, in which 202 people died, Indonesian authorities have been woolly in their response to terrorism for fear of alienating a largely anti-American population. Nothing illustrates this better than the appeal court's judgment on Bashir's early release - they took the decision even though he was implicated in a JI plot to

overthrow Indonesia's previous government, and despite independent testimony from senior JI operatives in custody that he had approved the 2002 bombings.

At 66, Bashir is a lanky, bespectacled Hadrami, who, like Osama Bin Laden, traces his family back to the Hadramawt region of Yemen. Surrounded by acolytes - including known JI bombers - serving him dates, he answered questions with a strong voice and easy laugh.

Scott Atran: What are the conditions for Islam to be strong?

Abu Bakar Bashir: The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting.

SA: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?

ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.

SA: What if they persist?

ABB: We'll keep fighting them and they'll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you'll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran.

SA: Have you met Osama Bin Laden?

ABB: No, no. I want to though. After my release, I hope I can meet him.

SA: Where will you find him?

ABB: If he still exists - but how could I? I have sympathy for his struggle. Osama is Allah's soldier. When I heard his story, I came to the conclusion that he's mujahid, a soldier of Allah.

SA: You will always be on his side?

ABB: His tactics and calculations may sometimes be wrong, he's an ordinary human being after all. I don't agree with all of his actions. Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine.

SA: So this fight will never end?

ABB: Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin. What I mean by America is George Bush's regime. There is no iman [belief] if one doesn't hate America.

SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?

ABB: We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.

Source: The First Post

I want to become a suicide bomber!

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
'Hi, my name is Ahmed and I
want to be a suicide bomber'
Recruited attacker for terror group talks to WND
about 'serving Allah by blasting unbelievers to hell'

---

Posted: November 24, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JENIN – WND was granted access through the Islamic Jihad terror group to a 23-year old Palestinian man who has volunteered to become a suicide bomber and who the organization says has "great potential" to carry out one of the next attempted suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

According to Islamic Jihad leaders, the potential bomber interviewed is one of over "hundreds" of young Palestinians in the northern West Bank who passed necessary recruitment stages and is available to attempt to infiltrate Jewish population centers wearing an explosive belt with the goal of blowing up as many Israelis as possible.

The interview took place in a remote building in the northern West Bank city of Jenin, a well-known Islamic Jihad stronghold from which the majority of recent Palestinian suicide bombers have originated.

The Islamic Jihad terror group has taken responsibility for every suicide attack inside Israel the past two years, including a bombing in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis. Islamic Jihad also has carried out scores of recent deadly shootings and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.

Islamic Jihad leaders allowed WND to interview the potential suicide bomber in a room together with his recruiter, who is a senior member of the terror group.

Both the recruiter and potential bomber were aware WND's reporter is Jewish.

The recruiter several times ordered the want-to-be bomber to refrain from answering certain questions during the interview, which was conducted using an English-Arabic translator.

The potential bomber's face was not covered during the interview, but he was told by the Islamic Jihad recruiter not to provide his name or extensive biographical information.

Following are excerpts from WND's conversation with the potential bomber, which includes topics such as the supposed reward of 72 dark-eyed virgins for carrying out an attack; the belief among some Muslims that Jews descended from pigs and monkeys; and the potential suicide bomber's desire to kill WND's reporter in a suicide operation.

'I pray Allah makes me dead in a (suicide) operation'

WND: Tell me about your life and what you do with your free time.

BOMBER: I study at a West Bank university and I have great hopes of getting married within the next couple of months. My life is very normal. I watch television, particularly news, and historical and religious programs. From time to time I play soccer and lift weights.

WND: Is your family poor?

BOMBER: No. We are regular but far from being wealthy. I share my bedroom with my brothers but now there is less pressure because last summer one of my brothers was married and moved to live outside.

WND: Why do you want to become a suicide bomber?

BOMBER: I originally decided to become a martyr after I saw what the Israeli army did in the refugee camp of Jenin in the big military campaign of April, 2002.

But this idea became stronger when I understood what status I will have in heaven if I scarify myself for Allah. Every time somebody else dies as a martyr in a suicide bomb attack, I pray for him but I feel jealous. I want to be where he is now and I pray that Allah will one day offer me this occasion and this honor.

[Editor's note: The potential bomber was referring to an Israeli anti-terror raid in his hometown of Jenin in 2002 in which Palestinian leaders accused the Jewish state of a "massacre," claiming the Israeli Defense Forces killed over 500 Palestinian civilians, including many women and children.

It was later determined 56 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, were killed in the raid, which followed a series of deadly suicide attacks inside Israel that were reportedly planned and directed from the terror infrastructure in Jenin. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers died in the Jenin battle, in which IDF troops conducted house-to-house searches to minimize civilian casualties by avoiding air attacks.]

WND: Is your main motivation for becoming a bomber is to serve Allah?

BOMBER: Yes, of course. Allah gave Muslims the possibility to gain their prize and payment in different ways. There are those (Muslims) who pray and fast only and respect Allah's commandments, and there are those who wish a higher prize. And the highest prize is given to those who scarify themselves, their lives, their bodies and everything in this world.

WND: What you are saying is interesting because a lot of academics in the United States and many of my colleagues in the media claim Palestinians become suicide bombers because they are poor and desperate and because of so-called Israeli occupation. Are you telling me these are not the reasons you want to blow yourself up amongst Israelis?

BOMBER: The will to scarify myself for Allah is the first and most major reason. It is true that the Zionists are occupying our lands and that it is our religious duty to fight them, including through suicide attacks. The goal is not the killing of the Jews, but that this is the way to reach Allah.

The goal is satisfying Allah and his instructions. No money interests, nothing. No brainwash, no pressure; it is my decision. All the other lies are pathetic Israeli propaganda.

I pray that Allah gives me the honor to be dead in an operation. This is the supreme and the noblest way to ascend to Allah.

These martyrs have special status in the next world and have bigger chances to watch Allah's face and enjoy the magnificent pleasures he offers us.

'It is our duty to fight Jews but our goal is to please Allah'

WND: Did I hear you say your goal is not to kill Jews? Isn't that exactly what you will do as a suicide bomber?

BOMBER: Maybe the fact that I was born here has sharpened my religious conscience, but I believe that even if I was in Chechnya, in Iraq, Afghanistan on anywhere else I would want to be a martyr.

It is Allah's satisfaction that is important to me no matter where I live. But as we live in this part of the world the way to reach Allah for me is through fighting the Zionist enemy. It is the jihad, the sacrificing that is important.

WND: These cliches are impressive but I know you are aware that you are speaking to a Jew. Perhaps you are telling me what I want to hear. Tell me the truth. You want to kill Jews, don't you?

BOMBER: We were never taught to hate Jews but to hate the occupation of the Zionists to our Islamic land that the Zionist entity with the conspiracy of the world has stolen and occupied. Jews can have their state but not on our lands and until this goal is achieved every Muslim must fight this entity.

The Jews stole this holy Islamic land and we must fight them, but I am looking to receive what waits for me in the next world.

'Enjoy your tea and our hospitality before I send you to hell.'

WND: You talk about fighting them, the Jews. I'm an American Jew. Do you want to kill me?

BOMBER: You are here and nobody hurts you and nobody thinks to do so. But if, unfortunately for you, if you will be in a place where my (suicide) operation will take place, I will not feel sorrow.

You American Jews are fully partners with the Zionists and even more dangerous than the Israelis because of the international support you give to the Israelis in their massacres against our people and the maintenance of the occupation.

WND: So if after today's meeting you saw me in a cafe in Jerusalem that you were sent to attack, you'd still try to blow it up?

BOMBER: At the moment there will not be a place for feelings and hesitations. If I go in an operation it means that I decided to leave behind my loved ones – my mother, my father, brothers and sisters, all my family and my friends. And if I am capable of this I would not give you a break just because we met for one time.

Meanwhile and before I drive you to hell in an operation, enjoy your tea and our hospitality. (Laughing).

'And Allah shouted: Be pigs and monkeys'

WND: Many programs on Palestinian television have been teaching viewers Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys and that we use Palestinian and Christian blood to bake our Passover matzos. Is this what you believe?

BOMBER: I know where this question comes from. You think that we all are naive or bad from birth or that we were exposed to brainwashing. We just follow what we are demanded in the Quran to do because if we do not do so we will be attacked, occupied, controlled and killed by these enemies of Islam.

WND: You didn't answer my question. Do you believe I come from pigs and monkeys?

BOMBER: The Quran tells us that Allah was upset with the Jews because of their negative behavior towards Moses and Allah's commandments and Allah shouted to the Jews, 'Be pigs and monkeys.'

I don't know if physically Allah turned them to pigs and monkeys, or it was a way to tell them that they are as terrible as pigs and monkeys. The most important thing is that this is what Allah, may he be blessed, thinks that the Jews deserve to be.

I don't know about the Passover matzo but I know the Jews are the nation who was known for killing Allah's prophets and the nation that in our days wants to control the world or at least this part of the world, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Meanwhile they (Jews) are controlling the U.S., its media, its financial system and its administration.

'You'll go to hell while 72 dark-eyed virgins await me in paradise.'

WND: When you mentioned before the pleasures that await you after a suicide bombing, I assume you were referring to the 72 dark-eyed virgins you believe will be waiting for you in heaven?

(Potential bomber nods to signal yes.)

WND: You talk about so-called martyrdom being divine. About being rewarded in the next world on supreme spiritual levels for what you say is a gift to Allah. And yet you tell me that what awaits you after a suicide operation is an eternity of sex with virgins. This is the most baseline physical pleasure imaginable. This is your religious version of heaven?

BOMBER: Let me explain something to you. The world, the lower one we are in now, it is temporary. Allah examines the loyalty of human beings, asking you in this materialistic world to avoid all that is tempting, all that pleasures you on earth, and to dedicate yourself to Allah.

This doesn't mean that Allah does not think it is good to take part in these needs of sex, in the pleasure of drinking alcohol, enjoying nature and other stuff. The point is that non-Muslims do those things in this world while ignoring Allah and all moral rules, while Muslims are asked to do a tremendous spiritual effort on earth in order to gain these other (physical) pleasures in the next world.

I don't know how you Jews see these physical pleasures, especially after the Torah that Allah gave you was falsified, but in our religion all spiritual efforts are asked from us on earth and it is much more difficult. So it is not that all the story is about sex. You do free sex now, I do not.

But you will go to hell after living 50, 60, 70, 80 years, and I will go, I pray that Allah accepts, to heaven and there I will do and will enjoy what you did during these 80 years. The difference is that after these years you will burn in hell forever and I will, after my years in this world of faith, restraint and patience, enjoy Allah's pleasures forever.

WND: Let's say your concept of heaven is accurate. You are indeed rewarded with 72 dark-eyed virgins for living the kind of life you describe. Do you really think you will go to heaven for killing innocent civilians during a suicide operation?

BOMBER: You are treating in a ridiculous way this issue, but this is in the Quran. Go and, Allah forbid, ask Allah about this point. We are promised in the Quran to have the dark-eyed virgins and that's it. The Quran is full of verses glorifying the shahid, the martyr.

WND: Show me exactly where in the Quran it states you will get 72 dark-eyed virgins for blowing yourself up amongst civilians.

BOMBER: You and I, we do not discuss Allah and the Quran. I will tell you more the moment that I will explode myself when there will be one dark-eyed virgin who will carry up my soul to the sky.

This is the important part of our mission – fulfilling Allah's commandments and hoping to receive the prizes we were promised in the Quran.

'America is a culture of immorality and free sex'

WND: What do you think about the Unites States?

BOMBER: I have no interest in the American culture which is an empty culture with no values. It is full of immorality and elements that are forbidden by Allah, like free sex and violence.

WND: So I take it you don't listen to American music or watch American movies?

BOMBER: I do not watch American movies and regret those days before the intifada (the Palestinian terror war that started in 2000) when I used to watch American movies like "Platoon" and that film that was made under the water.

These are stupid things and I ask Allah to forgive me for those hours I spent watching this nonsense.

In my opinion, America is the big enemy leading the war against Islam, Muslims, Palestinians and against anything that threatens the Zionist enemy.

WND: In the last suicide bombing, which took place in Tel Aviv earlier this year, an American teenager named Daniel Wultz was severely injured and later died of his wounds. In general, are Americans part of your target?

BOMBER: America is destroying and exploiting the Arabic and the Islamic world as part of a Zionist and Crusader plan. The American Jews, we say, are the godfathers of this Zionist entity in America.

Therefore this Daniel, I am sure, participated in the army activity. If not, he collected money for this Zionist entity. If not, he would decide one day to come to live here as a settler. Therefore there is no way that he can be defined as innocent.

WND: Do you think your family will miss you if you became a suicide bomber or would blowing yourself up amongst Israeli men, women and children make them proud?

BOMBER: My family, I think especially my mother, they have the feeling that one day they will hear that I carried out an operation. I do not think that they will be sad that I killed myself in an operation. It is the will to satisfy Allah.

I do not think my family will be surprised if I do it but I never told them anything because there may be some pressure and all our ideology is based on avoiding pressures and temptations connecting us to this lower world. It is the other world that I am seeking to join with all the love I have to my mother and my family. Now they love me and I hope in the future they will still love me but also be proud of me.

Source: WorldNetDaily.com