Half of the world cannot go to war

@Arif2: You are correct of course. I did not know that Muhammad had torn apart the men from the tribe of 'Ukl. If you have a reference to that I would very much appreciate it. What I know is that Muhammad ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. And they were not given any water till they died stretched out under the hot sun of the desert.

It is very difficult for non-Muslims to understand the effect of Islam on Muslims. Yasser goes from considering under age marriages as an abomination and believing that Muhammad did not marry a child to immediately defending that the first drop of menstruation means that a 12 year old (or a six year or seven year old) can be an adult and make independent decisions of her parents. It is not Yasser only. But unfortunately it is nearly all Muslims who will do that. In Islam there is no concept of inherent or natural rights. There is no natural right of a little girl to be treated as a child and her emotional and psychological welfare should weigh more than any religious diktat. Christianity, Judaism, hinduism, etc. all had accepted marriage of children in their earlier periods, but as medical and psychological knowledge increased they stopped child marriages. Islam does not allow that to Muslims. Allah explicitly allows marriage and sex with prepubertal girls in the Koran, and then Muhammad and his companions set the example. So the natural empathy for a child is over ridden because of Allah and Muhammad. If you feel and see the pain of a child, but over ride it because you are a muslim because of allah and Mo, then you will lose to feel and see the pain of anyone else. This psychological disorder infects an overwhelming majority of muslims unfortunately.

Yasser shows how quickly he is willing to overlook the horrendous damage to a child. Anything that Allah says in the Koran has to be, must be right. No questioning, no thinking, no examination. Not a split second to ask how come under-age marriage was bad one instant and perfectly acceptable the next. He could not answer Justcomments question: If underage marriage is acceptable if the minor agrees then what is the problem of Muhammad marrying a child if that child agreed? And how does one know that a child has agreed.

Thank you Kafir.
It’s really hard to let go of a belief no matter how absurd it may be. Everyone I knew was aware of Mohammed's child bride, Ayesha. Mohammed’s child bride only became a thorn after that belief of mine eroded. Once a believer has doubts it’s like a domino effect. After the child bride character flaw, we see that Mohammed was a very hard and non forgiving person, devoid of Love and compassion. He was ruthless with enemies that he himself created. Of particular note was the way he killed his captives. There is an instance of some thieves who befriended him and also accepted him as their prophet, then they stole his camels (how Mohammed got them is another issue) and ran away. The camel thieves were caught and how Mohammed punishes them is documented. He gouges out their eyes, and then he ties one leg to one camel and the other to another camel and then rips the human apart. They watch this as this happens. This punishment is also mentioned in the quran if one reads it carefully, Allah promises to do that to his enemies. It seems Mohammed is as cruel as his Allah. Mohammed's believers are as cruel with their created enemies too.

I also provide a link to news showing that a Court in Pakistan accepted a 12 year old girls marriage to a 25 year old man over ruling her father who was claiming that his daughter had been kidnapped and raped, all because she had "attained puberty" and was now an adult in Islamic law and would not testify against the 25 year old man. I also refer to the Saudi Sheikh telling the marriage of a 1 year old girl is Islamically acceptable (Jan 17, 1:40 pm).

I post a link to an exegesis of the Quran by Maulana Maudoodi showing that Allah accepts the marriage of and sex with prepubertal girls in the Quran (Jan 17, 2:21 pm)

I also show that the claim by YY that a 14 year old can get married anywhere is false (Jan 18, 1:05 am).

10: YY now writes: "You seem to have this whole database of court rulings in Pakistan. How many marriages of 3 year old girls as you claim have been legalized by the court?" (Jan 18, 2:25 am).

I provide a link showing a six month old being married to a 25 year old man in Pakistan and the legislators of Pakistan unable to pass a law that prohibts such marriages (because they are Islamic was the reason why they were unable to) (Jan 18, 3:02 am.)

11. YY replies: "I refute all you positions with facts and only facts."
I post this summary and conclude this exchange on my part.

I reminded YY that I had already shown a court ruling showing acceptance of under age marriage by a legal court that had relied upon a Shariat court's ruling: "So in your Pakistan not only underage marriage accepted by the Shariat courts but is also accepted by the legal courts." (Jan 15, 12:55 pm)

8. YY writes:"Isn't it strange that even though Ayesha is narrator of so many Ahadiths (Sayings of Prophet) never once does she ever mentions her age at the time of marriage? Nor is this piece of information narrated by any of Prophet Muhammad's close companions. For a Hadith to be considered authentic it has to be corroborated by atleast 3-4 sources. This particular Hadith regarding age of Ayesha (RA) being 9 at the time of her marriage comes from a single source and that too a little known companion of Prophet Muhammad who related this information when he had reached a very old age. There and many Islamic Scholars (my own uncle being one of them) who have worked upon this issue and basically rendered this Hadith as untrue." (Jan 17, 6:02 am)
YY now abadons his earlier insistence that there was no under-age marriage for girls in pakistan (see 7 above), and now writes: "The will of the son or daughter is necessary before he or she is married to each other. An Adult muslim girl (in this case one who has reached an age of puberty) can marry out of her own freewill without the consent of her parents." (Jan 17, 6:02 am) and "A father cannot marry his underage daughter against her will under any circumstances. Thats the mainstream Hanafi Law as well as law of the land in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Court case Kafir cites is of 14 year old girl marrying out of her own free will. Islam allows it. A 14 year old girl can get married anywhere in the US as well, the only difference being that she will need consent of her parents. Once she gets that, her marriage is absolutely legal."(Jan 17, 11:05 am) and "A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies. However, if the situation was reversed and the father had forced his 14 year old daughter to be married it would have been both illegal and un islamic in Pakistan." (Jan 17, 11:55 AM)

9. I then posted links to Sahih Hadiath from Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawd showing that the assertion that the age of Aiesha only depends on one report of "urwa" is false, and that is why Shara around the world accepts Child marriages, and that three of the six Sahih Hadis accept the age of Ayesha. That is proof of as sound a hadith as can be had in Islamic law. ( Jan 17, 1:06pm) I had also posted hadith showing that "silence" of an underage girl is all that is required as her acceptance of marriage, which is used by muslims to marry infants who cannot even speak yet(Jan. 15, 6:24 pm).
Cont'd

4. YY replies: "I can speak for Pakistan. The Constitution of Pakistan makes it clear that no laws can be made in contradiction with Quran and Sunnah. If the Shariah Court had passed such an edict as you claim, punishment for underage marriages would never have been possible in Pakistan." He is obviously convinced that the age of marriage is 16 years for pakistan and there is a penal penalty for under age marriage in Pakistan.

I reply that what I had shown should be sufficient and that "rape of nine years old girls" is accepted according to the islamqa fatwa (Jan 13, 2:38 am and 3:12 am)

5. Justacomment then posts and wants to know more information ( Jan 13, 12:55 pm)
I then post Links showing: i)a pro-Islam link and provides the "best" face of child marriages that Muslims can put on the situation, ii) the sanitized article on wikipedia on Islam and children, iii) A fatwa from islamweb that provides the classic sources and arguments why child brides are okay in Islam. It also shows that it was not only Muhammad who had a child bride but many of his close companions as well. (Jan 13, 5:42 pm) iv) data from UN v) A youtube to BBC show on child marriages in Islam, vi) Islamic answer to Child brides part 1 (Jan 13, 6:50 pm) vii)Statistics from SudanVision showing 100 to 130 million girls undergoing FGM, viii) Statistics from UNfpa and ix) Sisters in Islam trying to fight child marriage laws in Malaysia. (Jan 13, 7:00 pm)

6. I then post links to i) an article showing a retired Judge of the High Court of Lahore in Pakistan stating: ""Under Pakistani law, the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 states no female under 16 or male less than 18 may marry. But under Hudood Ordinance, as soon as a girl reaches her puberty, she can marry," and Hassamuddin Mansoori, a renowned religious scholar stating: "The 16-year age restriction is in the Pakistan panel code. It has nothing to do with Islamic law. "According to Islamic law, if a girl or boy has reached puberty, they can marry." ii) human rights in Pakistan stating estimates that 30% of marriages in Pakistan involve child brides. (Jan 13, 10:24 pm) and iii) a news from pakistan times showing that the Lahore High Court had over ruled the girls father wishes and recognized the marriage of a under 14 years age girl by citing a Shariat court ruling (Jan 13, 11:40 pm)

7. YY replies: "I can see others have jumped into this conversation so I think there's a need to respond to your half truths and falsehoods." and "Under age marriage is unlawful in Pakistan! Period! Regardless whether the girl has reached puberty or not. You claim to be Pakistani, show me one example where such a marriage has been called legal by any Sharia Court and I'll never post on this blog again." (Jan 15, 2:57 am).

cont'd

Summary of exchanges with YasserYousufi. I make this summary for the benefit of anyone who might stumble upon this in the future and wants to get an outline without having to wade through the lengthy posts. They can use their own reason to decide on the face of Islam revealed in this exchange.

1. YY wrote: "I am not here to give free education. You are the ones loosing sleep over us muslims not me. Lets hear your issues with us one at a time."
So I asked: "You obviously are a very intelligent, smart and well educated person. How can you possibly respect someone even Kemal Attaturk called an Immoral Bedouin? One of the reasons he is immoral is because he was dreaming marrying an infant of 1 or 2 year old when he is in his forties. He marries a six year old daughter of his follower. ..., and then goes ahead and fudges her when she is nine and still playing with dolls when he is over fifty.(Jan. 12, 12:07 am).

2. YY answer: "It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't married to Prophet Muhammad at 6 years age. It was a normal marriage. The Hadith quoted in this regard is a zaeef hadith as such cannot be believed."

I posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13gtjjDEgE (at mark 1.30) showing a Saudi Sheik confirming that Mo had married at six and fudged his child bride at nine, and "Even your Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan does not accept your assertion. They accept that mohammad fudged aiesha when she was nine."(Jan 12, 12:17 pm)

3. YY replies: "With regards to age of Ayesha, can we have the ruling of Federal Shariat Court in Pakistan that you cited? If it were true, under age marriages in Pakistan would not have been a crime." YY mentioning underage marriages showed that he perfectly understood that accepting Mo's marriage to a child is the reason for under age child marriages in Sharia. He then cut and pastes Ayesh'a age from http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/AyeshasAge.html (Jan 12, 1:38 pm)
I now show that child marriages are accepted by Muslims around the world. i) I give a link to eight year old divorcee in Yemen. ii) I show a link to that the age of marriage in Pakistan for females is 16 years OR the girl has attained puberty. iii) a link showing that attempt to raise the age of marriage by legislators rejected by the ruling Mullahs citing Mo's marriage to Aiesha. (Jan 12, 5:31pm). iv) Link to Indian Muslim Dr. Zakir Naik explaing Ayesha's young age at marriage to Islam's rule of age of marriage is "has attained puberty". v) Islamqa Fatwa showing Mo's companion had also had child brides and Islamic sharia is "attained puberty". vi) Fatwa from Indonesia stating clearly “They can get married at any age, even girls who haven’t started menstruating,” he said. “And they can have intimate relationships and intercourse, as long as they are able.” (Jan 12, 5:41 pm) vii) Link to Ghada Jamshir transcript where she talks about Muta marriages (i.e. temporary marriages) allow thighing of infant girls under Sharia. (Jan 12, 8:21 pm)

@Akafir,

Apologize and welcome

@Justacomment:

I am not religious.

yasseryousufi

You wrote, "The (Issa) Jesus represented in the Quran is absolutely the one represented in the real Bible not the one polluted by evil Constantine and Greeks of many gods and godesses (hence the concept of Trinity)."

Does this mean that the "real Bible", as you put it, is not the bible that anyone else on this planet, at this time, that considers themself a Christian, thinks of as the bible?

Does this mean the "Bible" that speaks of Jesus being crucified?

Does this mean the "Bible" where Jesus says, "I and the Father Are One"?

Does this mean the "Bible" where Jesus says, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you..."?

Does this mean the "Bible" where it says that Jesus "died" on the cross and rose from the dead?

Does this mean the "Bible" where when Jesus's Apostles asked Him to teach them how to pray, said, "When you pray, pray 'Our Father...'"?

Does this mean the "Bible" where Jesus said, "This is My Body...", "This is My Blood..."?

You then wrote, "The real Jesus bears little resemblance to the one created by these idol worshipers."

Just what does the "Jesus" resemble that was "created by these idol worshipers"?

You then wrote, "The real bible never said anything about trinity."

The word "trinity" may have never appeared in the bilbe but The Trinity most definitely has been alluded to many times in both the old and new testaments.

I have met Dad, God the Father, I have met the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, there is the Trinity.

You then asked, " What do the dead sea scrolls say about concept of trinity? "

I don't know.

You also asked, "Why does the vatican discourages its publication?"

I don't know if the Vatican discourages or doesn't discourage "its publication" but this is something to take up with the Vatican, not me.

God knew that I needed to "know" some things and that would be why God allowed me to "know" that God Is a Trinity and that satan is real and some other things to even attempt to do the "job" God choose me to do.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

@YasserYousufi,

Thanks for your comments to my post.

You might be right in that I have missed the mark assuming that Akafir, a former islamist, now belongs to a catholic or christian denomination. If that is not the case I'll apologize to Akafir.

Not being theist I don't get your point of highlighting the idolatry aspect of worshiping. My understanding is that worshipers have god or gods in their minds when praying, images or icons or idols are representations that help the mind to concentrate and focus on the honored god(s). This should not be bad, unless you mean idol as in a false god(s)/goddess(es). I would agree with you on the later.

You asked “Didn't everything start out of nothing?”. My answer is I don't know and probably nobody knows today. Even if somebody find evidence of this, I doubt that it can be linked to one specific god(s) or goddess(es) among the hundreds, probably thousands, worshiped. But I'm open to what you may have to say about it.

“Don't worry about missing by an inch and ending up toasting for ever. God is merciful as well.” But YY, which god(s)/goddess(es). Would your god Allah be merciful if somebody by mistake take the christian god? I know that there may be other religions with god(s)/goddess(es) that don't mind too much about this, which doesn't mean that the person should pick such a religion just because of this feature. My point is that for a person making this type of choice is something very complex given today's easy access to information. Ironic I think. See a list of gods and goddesses in this web page: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm

“If you try to lookout for him, he might even guide you......” Again, the person still has to make a choice among thousand of alternatives, with which one the person has to start to lookout for? Why Quetzalcoatl and not Krishna or Thor? Should the criteria be geography, best retributions in the after life, avoid the worst punishment, most worshiped, more miracles, best evidences, lower tithes or what? Probably this endeavor will take the person more than one life...this is what is in my mind YY.

Justacomment,

I believe you are a bit off the mark with your observations. Kafir and I certainly do not believe in the same God. Kafir, true to his name, hides his real religion from everyone. I dont think he has ever revealed his religion to anyone on this blog. But all things considered and considering his admiration for the Kuffars of Mecca its probably safe bet that he is some kind of an idol worshipper, most probably a Hindu.

You say,

"In the main monotheistic religions god is so powerful that is believed to have created the universe and humanity from nothing"

Do you doubt that? Didn't everything start out of nothing?

Seeking truth and the real truth is a life long endeavour my friend. Dont worry about missing by an inch and endig up toasting for ever. God is mercifull as well. If you try to lookout for him, he might even guide you......

To YasserYousufi & Akafir,

You are discussing underage marriage from the perspective of two very important aspects of the issue, the religious perspective and the laws of a country perspective. As Akafir mentioned and all us already know, there is also the cultural and practical aspect that in many cases go against whatever religion or the laws say.

As we speak now, many 25 years old adult males are marrying 9 years old girls, laws and religion dammed. Specially in non urban areas, and more frequently in undeveloped countries.

This is not an unique case among codes of conducts and relationships. Same happens with what to do with a cheating spouse, the rights or not rights of women, what if a person leaves a religion, how to treat people of other races or religions, how to dress or not to dress, etc.

If we talk about religion, which is my primary interest at this time, we are talking about a god or gods as powerful entities. In the main monotheistic religions god is so powerful that is believed to have created the universe and humanity from nothing.

What I don't clearly understand is how you as two humans beings (Akafir and YasserYousufi) who follow what appears to be the same god, cannot agree on what this god expects from humanity. What if a person making a choice picks the wrong sacred books. What if the person picks the right one but interprets the books in the wrong way. What if the persons subscribe to the wrong denomination or sect.

Religion is a risky endeavor. God commands are rigid and bear consequences, but interactive communication with him/her has been lost or at least is blur, very confusing. Miss by millimeters and you may end up toasting for ever.

I'm very well aware that you have your own interest and priorities in your discussion, and by no means I want you to alter them. But if as a sideline you can touch on what I said above, I think it will enrich a little bit all parties involved.

Peace to you brothers in no-god.

Kafir Munnay,

I refute all you positions with facts and only facts. I know being a Kafir its against your religion to accept truth. You jump from what one random mulla says in Bahrain to what the other says in Yemen. I do not have the time to check out the authenticity of each of your claims or their background. You may get paid to said on this blog all day long to post a hundred anti-islamic post, i dont. So deal with the facts I give you, dont give me what this mulla says or that mulla says bs.

I never said I do not like Sahih Hadith. No Hadith in any of the books quotes directly from Ayesha. Imam Bukhari whose book you quote was born 200 years after the death of Ayesha. The hadith's related to Ayesha come from a chain of sources all of which have to be verified. Imam Bukhari only included 10% of the Hadith's in his books because he wasn't sure about the veracity of the other 90%. He was only a human. his book is the most revered book after Quran because it contains the quotes from Prophet Muhammad. However when one the Ahadith he put in his book has been found to be incorrect after extensive research, muslims have no obligation to believe in it. Allah will forgive Imam Bukhari, because he was only a human. He did a great service to humanity and specially muslims for which he will be rewarded in after life. But no ordinary human being is 100% perfect, we are all prone to mistakes.

You say,

"The marriage laws in US consider the marriage of under 14 or 13 completely out of the question"

I think you are a bit confused. You yourself posted the law in New Hampshire, US that says a girl-child between 13-14 year can get married. Why do you believe US allows a 13 year old child to get married? Why aren't you hollering at full voice against this practice as you do against us muslims? After all you claim to live in US no?

And finally I believe you are losing your composure now that you are citing news snippets from your Native India. Do you want me to dig up materials in giga bytes present regarding child marriages and child brides, dowry etc. in India? I asked you to cite the marriage of a 3 year old that has been verified by the courts in Pakistan. You ask me stupidly why this marriage has not been negated by any court or administration in pakistan. In Pakistan hundreds of such weddings are raided every month, and the perpetrators are put in jail. Such dog bites man stories wouldn't make it through to your kerala.com newspapers I guess.

cont'd:

I gave you the link earlier and here it is again:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46022

It says: "In March 2004, the Law and Justice Commission came out with a draft amendment to the Pakistan Penal Code seeking to penalise the act of offering or accepting a woman against her free will, or any child in marriage by way of compensation. That amendment was never passed and estimates say that 30 percent of all marriages fall into the category of child marriage. "

30 PERCENT OF ALL MARRIAGES FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF CHILD MARRIAGE!!

Pakistan is really confused about what the want. Islamic law tells you puberty is sufficient for a girl to get married and then the police goes around trying to arrest people who are actually marrying young girls and then you have judges accepting marriages of under-age girls.

The more Islamic you will become the more Saudi Arabia like you will become and then you will have 1 year old being married off without any confusion. That will be fine and the police will not be calling it pedophilia.

If you really want to see the true horror of what Islam does take a look at what is happening to under-age non-muslim girls in Pakistan or Egypt for example.

YasserYousufi Sahib:

As Maulana Maududi points out in his Tahfeem ul Quran, Allah allows marriage and sex with girls that have not attained puberty. Allah allows marriage to infant girls and that is why the link I gave to Gahda Jamshir railing against Sharia that allows thighing of infants. Listen for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SbckLa73Is

If Allah allows marriage and sex with prepubertal little girls, why would Muhammad and his companions not do it as the Fatwa giving Imam tells us by giving reference to Islamic books? You are looking up references to apologists who are trying to say that Muhammad did not marry a child. Your Allah allows anyone to marry a child, why should your prophet marrying one be a big deal in Islam?

You don't like the Sahih hadith and you think that a hadith with Aiesha as the only one in the isnad is Daef, and which has been accepted by at least three of the six Hadiths, then there is no single hadith that can be accepted as sound.

The marriage laws in US consider the marriage of under 14 or 13 completely out of the question. The 14 year old requires permission of both the parents, and of a very senior judge or a justice. Then it is only in one state of the country and only limited to residents of that state. Those conditions tell anyone that the marriage of that a young child is considered very very exceptional, and the state is trying very hard to accommodate the possibility that it might be in the interest of the child and the parents will be taking full responsibility. Whereas the court in Pakistan is over ruling the desire of the parent who thinks his 12 year old daughter was raped by the 25 year old man merely because she has attained puberty. A little girl who has attained puberty is considered an adult in Islam and as I have shown you ruling by Pakistani Judges of the High court that she can make her own decision on marriage. She does not need the permission of a judge. The judge is merely refusing the father to pursue the 25 year old man who got the 12 year old to run away with him. I know you are intelligent enough to see the difference. If you cannot then your brain has completely shut down and there is nothing anyone can say or do to make you understand.

Here is a link to a 25 year old man being married to a six month old baby in Pakistan:
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-118358.html
"slamabad, May 31 : In order to resolve a feud brought about by the "kidnapping" and subsequent love marriage of a girl by a married man, a Jirga in Pakistan has decided that the man's six-month-old daughter should be married off to the girl's 25-year-old brother."
And this marriage was never negated by any court or administration in Pakistan. Why?

cont'd

Justacomment,

I am hoping my response to Kafir is sufficient. However, if you have further queries in this regard, please go ahead. This might turn out to be a fruitful discussion with us learning something new and getting better informed.

Regarding the marrying age in Pakistan and US, New Hampshire Shariah allows a child of 13 year old to get married and a Court in Punjab Province citing Islamic Shariah allowed the wedding of a 12 year old girl, so whats your issue sir? Both of these marriages are allowed with the consent of the child bride. If the girl had said in the court that she was forced into this marriage by her father it would have been null and void and the Father would have been put in Jail (as many are).

You seem to have this whole database of court rulings in Pakistan. How many marriages of 3 year old girls as you claim have been legalized by the court?? Surely if there is such a law many people would have misused it and the Courts would have been compelled to allow it and these decisions would have printed in newspapers all over the world, no?

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

Neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated. Prophet Muhammad had many enemies in Makkah and Arabia at that time who were always on the lookout to find fault with the Prophet and save their religion of idols, If he had married a 9 year old girl against the norms of that society they would have certainly raised hell at that time. We hear nothing from from avowed enemies of Islam and Prophet Muhammad at the time such as Abu Sufyan, Abhu Jahal, or any other leader of Quraysh, because this event never happened and is misquoted in the books of Hadith.

Regarding the age of Ayesha (RA),

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

Kafir,

It is true that the Hadith you quote come from six books of Hadith that are considered trust worthy, but still they have been compiled by humans so there is a chance of 1% error despite their sincere efforts of putting in exact quotes from Prophet Muhammad. As far as I know its just the Ahadith related to age of Ayesha (RA) in the six books of Hadith that religious scholars, who have researched the events and History of Islamic evolution, have objected to based on the fact that almost all of them come from a single source, an old companion of Prophet Muhammad by the name of Hisham Ibne Urwah and that too while he was living in Iraq after having lived in Medina for 71 years of his life.

Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib writes:"Yes and so is it accepted in US, Uk or any other place. A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies."

Not true. Marriage age in the law in the USA are given at http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

It tells you that
"In the United States, all but two states require a couple be age 18 in order to marry without parental consent. Nebraska sets the age at 19 and Mississippi at 21 at the time of this writing (May 2003). A few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy involved, but the couple may still have to have court approval."

"For the two states that do allow younger ages the site tells us:
New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions."

and

"New York: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will need to have a completed parental consent form filled out by both parents. If you are either 14 or 15 years of age, you will need to show the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the local Family Court. Applicants under 14 years of age cannot marry. Only one parent's consent will be accepted if one parent is deceased or has been missing for over a year, or if one parent has full custody from a divorce proceeding. Your parents or guardians must give their consent in person before the town or city clerk or some other authorized official. If they are out of state, a notarized affidavit is acceptable but has to be accompanied by a certificate of authentication when the consent is filed in New York State."

So Parental consent is required between the ages of 14 and 18. A child cannot marry even with parental consent below the age of 14.

Now compare this with your Islamic law in Pakistan:

A girl is an adult as soon as she starts menstruating under Islamic Sharia. Very young girls (only a few years old) have been know to menstruate. Significant number of girls will start by age nine or ten. These girls in Islam and in Pakistan can marry. Now do they have to have a parents consent. No. Look at the case of the 12 year old whose link I gave:
http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/05/14/d505141311102.htm
The news tells us:
[[
He accepted a joint petition by the girl, named as Zeenat Bibi, and her 25-year-old husband Babar Javed and dismissed charges of rape which were filed by her father.
]]

A 25 year old man has gotten a 12 year old to elope with him and they got married. The father objects and thinks her daughter has been raped. The Islamic Judge disagrees!! Think what consequences this law has for families in Muslim countries.

@YasserYousufi,

I just came back to the blog to find that there has been several post that make my questions to you redundant. Rather I'll be waiting for your rebuttals to Akafir.

Nevertheless, in the mean time I have new questions if you don't mind:

* If marriage of a minor with his/her consent is accepted by Islam, what is the problem with some enemies of Islam accusing Muhammad of being with Ayesha when she was 9 if she consented?

* Is this particular single-source Hadith under discussion part of the sacred scriptures or was it discarded? How one knows which Hadiths are valid and which don't?

* How a minor is explained by his/her guardian that is going to be married and how he/she gives the consent?

NOTE: I'm aware that Akafir touched some of this topics, but as with the invalid Hadith would like to have another input, in this case from you.

Observation for Kafirs.

Note the evolution of YasserYousufi.

He started out convinced that the penal code of Pakistan specifying 16 years of age of maturity was a hard limit. It was an inheritance of the Kafir British law. Then in the 80's real islamisation of Pakistan begins and there was a conflict. Now the courts accept Islamic Sharia over rides everything else.

In Islam there is no concept of "natural" rights as assumed by Locke and others and which the US constitution shrines as the Bill of rights. There is no "inherent" right or wrong. There is only what Allah decrees. If Allah says "X" is allowed then it is, and if Allah say "X" is prohibited then so it is. There is no question of any intrinsic or inherent morality. And Allah has allowed marriage and sex with girls who have not attained puberty in the Quran.

Cannot be you say!! Well read for yourself:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=65
This is the commentary by Maulana Maududi the founder of Jamaate Islamai in Pakistan. You can read about him. He is a leading authority of Islam. Read his commentary on Quran 65.4 especially his footnote 13:
**********
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
****************

You see there is no inherent right of the poor little girl at all. If Allah says so then it is not sinful at all. And there is no authority in Islam, not one person, not any organisation, that can over rule the Quran.

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib writes:

"Yes and so is it accepted in US, Uk or any other place. A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies. However, if the situation was reversed and the father had forced his 14 year old daughter to be married it would have been both illegal and un islamic in Pakistan."
**************

Pakistan law does not say anything about 14 years.

The law says that the girl has attained puberty, that is she has started menstruating. Please show where in your Pakistani Law there is a limit of 14 years given. I showed you an example where the girl was 13 years and 11 months old, that is under 14 years of age.

Here is a link to your Pakistani Court validating a 12 year olds marriage:
http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/05/14/d505141311102.htm

Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi observed that in Islam "puberty starts with menstruation and as such the marriage of Zeenat and Babar Javed is declared valid."
*********

The islamweb Fatwa that I gave clearly states that under Islamic Sharia a girl even in the cradle can be married off by her guardian. I showed you the link on Youtube where the Saudi official is saying that even a one year old can be married off by her father.

cont'd:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Imam Muslim
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=008&translator=2&start=73&number=3303
Book 008, Number 3309:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud
Book 41, Number 4915:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Book 41, Number 4916:
Narrated AbuUsamah:
The tradition mentioned above (No. 4915) has also been transmitted by AbuUsamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators.
This version has: "With good fortune. " She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him.

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib:

First to the matter of Hadeeth. You are wrong. There are hadith from Aiesha herself.

There were many many sayings and reports of Muhammad floating around and then the top respected Imams of Islam went about collecting them and sorting and rejecting the unreliable ones. There are six that were accepted by consensus and called "Sahih" or sound. Now if a hadith is found in two or more of these six Sahih hadees, it is as "sound" as sound a hadith can get. I give below references from three of these six Sahih hadith on the issue of Aiesha being nine when Muhammad consummated the marriage, and please note the narrator given as well. The link to these is:
http://www.searchtruth.com/hadith_books.php I give the URL of only a couple. You may look up the others at the link given.

Sahih Hadith
Imam Bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=58&translator=1&start=0&number=234#234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

cont'd

*correction
In my previous post,

"A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies."

should read,

A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies under some conditions.

So in your Pakistan not only underage marriage accepted by the Shariat courts but is also accepted by the legal courts.
---Kafir

Yes and so is it accepted in US, Uk or any other place. A 14 year old girl can get married out of her own freewill in most western, secular societies. However, if the situation was reversed and the father had forced his 14 year old daughter to be married it would have been both illegal and un islamic in Pakistan.

Thomas,

Now that we are done with first part of your education, lets move to second. You say;

"He repeatedly has sent, whatever those http things are called, and asked for your comments and you seem to be the "covering up one", quite often, in your lack of comments concerning the http sites and attempting to belittle, rather than engaging in a dialogue."

I have known Kafir for a considerable enough time to be aware of all his Kafir tactics. His usual run away clause is to inundate you with multiple meandering and hackneyed post when one I point out falsehoods in his posts. So I am not playing by his rules anymore since it will never resolve anything as he will keep shifting goalposts. He never gave me any evidence of Shariah Court ruling he cited regarding Ayesha (RA) age at the time of Prophet Muhammad. Plus I also have a day job and do not have enough spare time to read half a dozen copy paste posts in reply to one post.

The (Issa) Jesus represented in the Quran is absolutely the one represented in the real Bible not the one polluted by evil Constantine and Greeks of many gods and godesses (hence the concept of Trinity). The real Jesus bears little resemblance to the one created by these idol worshipers. The real bible never said anything about trinity. What do the dead sea scrolls say about concept of trinity? Why does the vatican discourages its publication?

Justacomment,

I am sorry that either you didn't pay any attention to my detailed reply or I was unable to explain it to you in plain enough words.

Please re-read the third part of my post, specially the last para. Your premise of Prophet Muhammad marrying a 9 year old girl is based on a fake Hadith. It never happened. A father cannot marry his underage daughter against her will under any circumstances. Thats the mainstream Hanafi Law as well as law of the land in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Court case Kafir cites is of 14 year old girl marrying out of her own free will. Islam allows it. A 14 year old girl can get married anywhere in the US as well, the only difference being that she will need consent of her parents. Once she gets that, her marriage is absolutely legal.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

@YasserYosoufi

Thanks for your post addressed to me. Unfortunately it doesn't answer my doubts. Here again are my questions:

Is it permitted or not to a father to marry and underage girl to an adult man following certain limitations? If the main prophet of your religion provided the example consummating one of his marriages with girl when she became 9 years old, how some leaders can prohibit it?

You said “One of the reasons for me to come on this blog is to learn more about other cultures and religions and test my own beliefs and ideas against them”. Precisely my curiosity is what you believe about the underage marriage from the perspective of your religion beliefs. More to the point, it appears to me that you don't feel that underage marriage is a good thing, but your religion is OK with it. Or maybe is that by making it more a secular laws issue and not a religious belief you make Islam to look more palatable to westerners. But I don't want my guessing to talk on your behalf. So let me add these questions: What is exactly your position? What is exactly the Islam position? Are there other sources, Fatwas or something like those, that contradict the references and facts given in other posts in this blog?

I have to say that a person like you willing to test his/her own believes against others is indicative of a wide open mind, which is highly commendable.

Thomas and Kafir, sorry for the late reply. Hopefully this blog will last for a few more hours. I am pre-occupied with some stuff right now and only had time to respond to the post that was addressed to me first. Stay tuned to this thread guys........will post a response soon!

(PART III)

Now coming to Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha (RA) something which is the favorite topic of Islamo-phobic mischief makers like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, I do not know if you read my response to Kafir below and the link I posted along with it. Isn't it strange that even though Ayesha is narrator of so many Ahadiths (Sayings of Prophet) never once does she ever mentions her age at the time of marriage? Nor is this piece of information narrated by any of Prophet Muhammad's close companions. For a Hadith to be considered authentic it has to be corroborated by atleast 3-4 sources. This particular Hadith regarding age of Ayesha (RA) being 9 at the time of her marriage comes from a single source and that too a little known companion of Prophet Muhammad who related this information when he had reached a very old age. There and many Islamic Scholars (my own uncle being one of them) who have worked upon this issue and basically rendered this Hadith as untrue.

Regarding your query whether it is allowed for a muslim father to marry his underage daughter, having reached an age of puberty or otherwise, that is not true according to Islamic law. The will of the son or daughter is necessary before he or she is married to each other. An Adult muslim girl (in this case one who has reached an age of puberty) can marry out of her own freewill without the consent of her parents. That is the mainstream interpretation of Islamic laws.

(PART II)

Reasons for the Prophet’s Marriages:

We can categorize all his marriages under two aspects of his personality:

- Muhammad the man who needed a loving wife, children, and a stable home, so he married Khadijah and remained with only her for 20 years until she died.

- Muhammad the Prophet who married the other wives for reasons pertaining to his duty to deliver the Message to the world. Those particular women were carefully selected, not just haphazardly “acquired” for carnal reasons, as suggested. Here are some of the reasons for which Muhammad married:

1. To pass on Islam to the next generations as a practical legacy

Prophet Muhammad is the only prophet without any privacy, and with a meticulously preserved tradition in speech and actions in all minute details of his public and private life. Preserved in the sharp minds of his wives and his Companions, those narrations comprise the “daily life manual” for Muslims to follow until the end of time. The fact that Islam was spread on the shoulders of women and preserved in their hearts is a great honor to the females of this Ummah. The books of authentic Hadith attribute more than 3,000 narrations and Prophetic traditions to his wives alone.

2. To cement the relations of the budding nation

In a tribal society, it was customary to seal treaties through marrying into tribes. Muhammad’s closest Companions later became the four caliphs who led Islam at the critical stage after his death. Two of them were the fathers of his wives `A’ishah (daughter of Abu Bakr) and Hafsa (daughter of `Umar); the other two married his daughters (`Uthman married Ruqayyah and Zaynab in succession, and `Ali married Fatimah).

3. To teach Muslims compassion with women

He taught them to be compassionate not just to the young and beautiful maidens, but more so to the weak and destitute widows, divorcees, orphans, and elderly women. Islam teaches that women are to be respected, protected, and cared for by their men folk. They’re not to be cast out to face a harsh life alone while able men around them just pity them and do nothing to help, or worse, use their weakness to take them as mistresses!

4. To offer a practical role model to Muslims until the end of time

Although many believing women often approached Muhammad offering him themselves in marriage, he politely turned down their offers. Most of his wives after the death of Khadijah were old, devoid of beauty, and previously married, except `A’ishah, who was the only young virgin. He married from other nations and religions; some were the daughters of his worst enemies, and his marriage to one woman won all her people into Islam. Regardless of his neutral feelings towards many of them, he was a model example of equal justice and kindness to them all, and he would never discriminate among them.

(PART I)

Justacomment,

Thank you for your post. I will also make it clear from the outset that I am certainly not an expert on Islam. I've had fairly traditional schooling and never went to a religious school and am an engineer by profession. One of the reasons for me to come on this blog is to learn more about other cultures and religions and test my own beliefs and ideas against them. I also try to combat some hatemongers on this blogs whose sole purpose is to spread hatred for muslims, filling the vacuum for a western audience that has either very modest or no knowledge of Islam. I do not try to give my own opinions on matters pertaining to religion rather quote them from authentic people and sources so that anyone who challenges me can look it up himself/herself.

Regarding wives of Prophet Muhammad, it is revealed in his biographies that he married atleast 9 times (atmost 12) during his life time.

If you are familiar with Christian traditions and Bible you would be familiar with the fact that almost all Prophets with the exception of Jesus were Polygamists (Solomon had a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines according to Bible) as it was essential for them in many ways. With regards to Prophet Muhammad, here are some facts that need to be told at the outset,

1. He remained single until age 25.

2. From age 25 to 50 he was faithful to only one wife, Khadijah, who bore all his children except one. She was 15 years older than him, with children from two previous marriages. She was his greatest ally when he received the Call at age 40 until she died when he was 50 years old. He remained in love with her until he died and often talked of his life with her with great nostalgia.

3. Between ages 50 and 52 he remained unmarried and mourning his late beloved wife. He lived alone with his daughters.

4. Between ages 53 and 60 he married all his other wives for many noble reasons that I will discuss in detail in the next part of this post. It’s unimaginable for a man to suddenly turn lustful at this age, especially as he was constantly traveling, with bloodthirsty enemies on his heels.

5. At age 60, Allah revealed to him verse preventing him from marrying any more until he died, which was at age 63. The Qur’an says what means:

*{It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives.}* (Al-Ahzab 33:52)

Here are some Sahih Hadeeth on the matter of Silence is a virgin's consent (A "virgin" in the hadeeth is normally a girl who has not menstruated yet. Since the hadeeth assume that all girls have been married at or before menstruation. So the concept of a menstruating "virgin" who has not had sex yet is foreign to the hadeeth literature.):

Imam Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."

Imam Muslim:

Book 008, Number 3303:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said: A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him): How her (virgin's) consent can be solicited? He (the Holy Prophet) said: That she keeps silence.

Imam Malik:
Book 28, Number 28.2.4:

Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn al-Fadl from Nafi ibn Jubayr ibn Mutim from Abdullah ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "A woman who has been previously married is more entitled to her person than her guardian, and a virgin must be asked for her consent for herself, and her consent is her silence "

This is one of the reasons why a girl in the cradle can be married off by her Wali (see the fatwa from islamweb site link I gave earlier). If the poor child is silent out of ignorance is never considered by allah or muhammad and millions of young girls have ended up having their childhood stolen because they never understood what was being done to them. Observe how the Muslims will defend this atrocity because their Allah and their prophet has to be defended at all cost.

@Akafir,

Thanks for remind me about the Fatwa.

Actually it did not escaped to me. What happens is that YasserYousufi may have something that contradicts with facts the position you claim. Hope that YasserYousufi returns to the blog and address my post.

JustaComment:

It might have escaped your notice on initial reading. The Fatwa that I had posted earlier from Islamweb
stated:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=88089
****
The saying of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her,: "(… So, such guardians were forbidden to marry such orphan girls unless they treated them justly …)" is evidence that it is permissible in Islamic Shariah to marry a young girl who is not yet mature, since the person is no longer considered an orphan when he reaches the age of puberty. The orphanage state of being orphan exists only prior to maturity. "
*****
Under all fiqh of Islam, puberty is the end of childhood and the individual is now considered an adult. That is why the Pakistani court judgment is so uttery devestating. If you read the Pakistan Times article, where ever it says adult in the judgment substitute "has attained puberty" and then see what it means.

If someone sweet talks a nine year or a seven year old girl who has attained puberty to eloping with him, the parents cannot overrule her choice. The Islamic Law gives them no relief.

That is the explicit law in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Most Pakistanis are not aware of the changes in the Pakistani laws as they are becoming more Islamic Sharia like(that is like Saudi Arabias).

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib:

Do you read the posts?

I had posted on January 13, 2011 11:40 PM :
*********
http://pakistantimes.net/2005/03/08/national2.htm

Pakistan's Court validates under-age girl’s Marriage
Pakistan Times National News Desk

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has observed that Nikah of a girl below the age of 16 is valid, as she has attained puberty despite the fact that she has not attained the 'age of maturity' (16 year).

"The Nikah/marriage contracted by a girl, not having attained the 'age of majority,' but puberty as defined in Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, is valid," the Court observed,

...

However, her father, Amir Afzal, produced the Nikahnama and birth certificate according to which she was born in December 1990. He stated that his daughter was 13 years and 11 months old when she contracted marriage with Muhammad Naseer. He contended that her marriage had no legal value as she was a minor. He further alleged that his daughter was abducted by Naseer's family. On the other hand, Hajra's counsel submitted that the girl had attained puberty, therefore, the Nikah was valid.
************

That link also states:
"The court observed that in the case Mst Sughran Mai vs The State, it was held that the marriage of a girl having attained puberty and contracting nikah of her own choice, could not be declared void for the reason that her guardian did not agree to it.

The court observed that Federal Shariat Court had already held that a sui-juris Muslim girl could contract marriage on her own accord and the consent of Wali and other relations was not required for the validity of marriage.

The court also observed that in Hidaya, the principle of Hanfi law states: "An adult female may engage in the contract without her guardian's consent-a woman who is an adult and of sound mind, may be married by the virtue of her own consent although the contract may not have been made or acceded to by her guardian."
*******

So in your Pakistan not only underage marriage accepted by the Shariat courts but is also accepted by the legal courts.

yasseryousufi

Thank you for your reply, concerning the Wikipedia site, but AKafir on his post of January 13, 2011 12:26 PM already sent me to the Wikipedia site and I replied, concerning that site on January 13, 2011 4:40 PM.

You then wrote, " Now you can see why your muslim hating friend like yourself Kafir calls himself Kafir. It perfectly suits his character.

It seems as if AKafir has stated many times that it is not Muslims, but islam itself, that he is writing about in his posts, hasn't he?

The, "He hid (something) by covering it up." and "In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]"", from the Etymology on the Wikipedia post, seems to only partially connect with the posted name that he uses.

This is just my opinion, I am not speaking for AKafir, but I would say that he has rejected the islamic faith but he also seems to be trying to "uncover" rather than cover.

He repeatedly has sent, whatever those http things are called, and asked for your comments and you seem to be the "covering up one", quite often, in your lack of comments concerning the http sites and attempting to belittle, rather than engaging in a dialogue.

You do the same thing when I ask you something or I post questions to you, you ignore them and just refer to your opinion of me as a Christian nut.

I don't care one way or the other what you think of me but do you know why you refuse to respond to the questions that I sometimes pose?

You should know as well as I do, and maybe better, that the Jesus presented in the bible and the Jesus presented in the koran bear very little resemblance to each other and also that the koran basically says that the bible is a lie, what is so hard about either agreeing with what I have just written or disagreeing and stating why?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

@YasserYousufi,

Thanks for your post and your link.

For now I would rather stay in the topic of little girls marriage, consequently would prefer to hear from you, a current follower of the Islam religion, your side of the story.

I reviewed the material in the links provided by Akafir, but by no means I consider myself an expert because of this quick reading. I tried to position myself as somebody who is looking for an spiritual renewal and is considering your religion as one potential choice.

In such a pursue the person suddenly find that this religion allows (and some muslim leaders even promote as a best way to protect the little boys and girls) marriage based on the historical example set by the prophet Mohamed and some of his immediate ranks.

Having in mind that there are cultural influences in this issue, what is relevant for the person looking into it is if it is allowed or not by the religion. Based on what I read it appears this is exactly the case. For this person looking into his/her new potential belief is not important that there are other cultural and legal influences on the issue that varies among countries. What is important is if this specific religion allows or not underage marriage to its followers.

Then, irrespective of what is in the laws of Pakistan, I would like to hear your side in this issue from the perspective of your religion. Is it permitted or not to a father to marry and underage girl to an adult man following certain limitations? If the main prophet of your religion provided the example consummating one of his marriages with girl when she became 9 years old, how some leaders can prohibit it?

Thanks in advance if you let me know directly in this blog your facts and thoughts to clarify my understanding.

JUSTACOMMENT,

If you are looking to learn more hatefull stuff about Islam, you could just go to the original source where Kafir copy pastes most of his stuff from only to be rendered lies by me. Go to Jihadwatch.com. You'll make many more anti-muslim friends there.

GoodLuck!

I looked up the word "Kafir" and in where I looked it up there is nothing about "concealer of truth", care to respond?

---ThomasBaum

Here's a bit of education for you Tom,

ETYMOLOGY

The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting (أَعْجَبَ الْكُفَّارَ نَبَاتُهُ) (Surah 57 Al-Hadid (Iron) Ayah 20;[1]). Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers".

In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]".[2]

"kafara" ~ the root verb ~ means "he hid (something)" and "he covered (something)" or "He hid (something) by covering it up." Both "hiding" and "covering up" are indelible significations of all of the words arising on the verbal root.

-------------------------------------

This is from Wikipedia, a site you should refer to if you have any confusions in the future. Now you can see why your muslim hating friend like yourself Kafir calls himself Kafir. It perfectly suits his character.

Kafir,

I can see others have jumped into this conversation so I think there's a need to respond to your half truths and falsehoods. If it were just for you I might not have bothered since you're being true to your name, hiding the truth.

First of all you never showed me the proof to your claim regarding the Shariah Court rulings on Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha (RA) despite given a number of chances so its safe to conclude that you made that and it had nothing to do with reality. Now you turn to twisting the facts which as a Kafir you are naturally quite adept at. Under age marriage is unlawful in Pakistan! Period! Regardless whether the girl has reached puberty or not. You claim to be Pakistani, show me one example where such a marriage has been called legal by any Sharia Court and I'll never post on this blog again.

I would say that such marriages do happen, but its a cultural thing and has nothing to do with the religion. Underage marriages happen all over the world as do underage sex. India probably tops the list in the count of child marriages. Are you gonna rant against hinduism too??

for reference.
*********
http://pakistantimes.net/2005/03/08/national2.htm

Pakistan's Court validates under-age girl’s Marriage
Pakistan Times National News Desk

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has observed that Nikah of a girl below the age of 16 is valid, as she has attained puberty despite the fact that she has not attained the 'age of maturity' (16 year).

"The Nikah/marriage contracted by a girl, not having attained the 'age of majority,' but puberty as defined in Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, is valid," the Court observed,

...

However, her father, Amir Afzal, produced the Nikahnama and birth certificate according to which she was born in December 1990. He stated that his daughter was 13 years and 11 months old when she contracted marriage with Muhammad Naseer. He contended that her marriage had no legal value as she was a minor. He further alleged that his daughter was abducted by Naseer's family. On the other hand, Hajra's counsel submitted that the girl had attained puberty, therefore, the Nikah was valid.
************

This comment is for reference and to help YasserYusufi if he does take a look.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1179664656817

[["Justice Majida, who was Pakistan's first woman high court judge, notes that the legality of early marriages in Pakistan is a complicated issue.

"Under Pakistani law, the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 states no female under 16 or male less than 18 may marry. But under Hudood Ordinance, as soon as a girl reaches her puberty, she can marry," aid the chairwoman of Women Rights Commission.

"This complication needs to be sorted out because Pakistan is a warm country, and generally girls reach their puberty at 11 or 12 years here," Justice Majida said.

In 1990, Pakistan ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Child, which prohibits child marriages.

In addition under the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, a girl must have attained the age of 16 and a boy must have turned 18, and both need to consent before the marriage can take place.

Hassamuddin Mansoori, a renowned religious scholar, says there is no age restriction for marriage in Islam.

"The 16-year age restriction is in the Pakistan panel code. It has nothing to do with Islamic law," he said.

"According to Islamic law, if a girl or boy has reached puberty, they can marry."]]

Pakistan has Conflicting laws and the Federal Shariat Court had upheld the Islamic Law of marriage at puberty about four or five years ago. As the article on a Pakistani site states that there are at least 30% of the marriages in Pakistan are for child brides.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46022

RIGHTS-PAKISTAN
Child Marriages Mock Laws, UN Conventions
By Zofeen Ebrahim

An estimated 30 percent of all marriages in Pakistan involve child brides.
******************
Hope that helps you think through this issue and clears up some confusion.

@Akafir,

Thanks for the comments and links.

Hopefully this topic of the abuse of little girls sanctified by Allah and the Koran arises again and you keep informing the distracted American with facts.

cont'd

7. Some horrifying statistics for children in muslim countries.
http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=9982
FGM/C Female genital multination/cutting (FGM/C) is the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia and or injuries to the female organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. Between 100 and 130 million women and girls in at least 30 countries in Africa and the Middle East, many of them OIC members, have undergone the procedure. It is generally carried out on girls aged 4 - 12, though it may occur as early as a few days after birth or as late as just prior to marriage or after a women's first pregnancy.

8. Child Marriage Fact Sheet from UNfpa
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_child_marriage.htm#ftn1

9. Sisters in Islam an organisation in Malaysia trying to fight the child marriage custom in Islam

http://www.wluml.org/node/6841

cont'd

I hate WaPO "thanks for commenting" page and eating up my post. So no lengthy comments just the links:

4. http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=SOWC&f=inID%3A87
Data from UN

5.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNouthf71f0
Child Marriage in Islam You Tube and page gives many other links.

6. Islamic answer to Child brides part 1 (look up the part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYT9bfUBV0

Justacomment writes: "I would like to ask you to please elaborate on the underage marriage problem: how widespread is it? Are there any numbers or estimations? Which countries are the ones with more cases? Etc. More likely this data is not disclosed officially by the islamist countries, but you may have sources."

I will state the qualifier first. Abuse of children is across cultures and across countries. It is more in some than in others, but it is present everywhere. Children are sexually and economically exploited when and where they can. Unfortunately it is a human tragedy that is hidden in silence. Since it is exploitation, there is a strong correlation that the children from the poorer segments of the society are sexually exploited more. These girls usually feed into the supply of prostitutes, and flesh trade globally.

Having said that, the real tragedy in Islam is that the abuse of little girls is sanctified by Allah and the Koran, and the natural human empathy for others finds no support from Islam for female children. (Compare this with sexual exploitation of female children in hinduism under the Devdasi system. There the exploited girls are isolated from the wider culture as wards of the temples and the deities).

There is a lot of information available on the web and I provide a few links (again making this into a multipost because WAPO doesn't like links):

1. http://www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Child/

This is a pro-Islam link and provides the "best" face of child marriages that Muslims can put on the situation. The arguments are tilted to why Islam treats the child brides humanely. What you will not and never find is Muslims confronting the simple question, why not simply make child marriage illegal. Of course the reason is that Muhammad had a child bride and Muhammad is an exemplary human and so if he did it then no man can make having child bride illegal. However, look at the news at the bottom of the page.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children

Wiki being wiki the information is sanitized. Hence much is left unsaid but at least it gives you an outline of the issues that are of interest. Most of the information is tilted towards the proponents of Islam because it is always harder to lift the carpet to see the dirt and the real mess, and it is very time consuming and difficult to do that at wiki with the way they are structured.

3. http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=88089

A Fatwa that provides the classic sources and arguments why child brides are okay in Islam. It also shows that it was not only Muhammad who had a child bride but many of his close companions as well.

Cont'd

AKafir

Thank you for the link, I understand, from yasseryousufi's point of view, why and how he put it that way.

You wrote, "I agree with you that if Muhammad had an encounter with anyone in that cave, it was Satan."

One of the reasons that I have said and continue to say that it was satan is that I have met God the Father and met the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, therefore since God is a Trinity and the god of islam vehemently denies that God is a Trinity than it stands to reason that the god of islam is satan.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

@Akafir,

Readers in this blog that have been following your discussion can understand why you don't want to waste your time with YasserYusufi.

Nevertheless you should consider that there are readers like me not knowledgeable in detail about the dangers of accepting Islam, sharia and the ideology that come along. You have the knowledge and the cojones to take on the lies that want to present a soft image of the islamist countries. I would like to ask you to please elaborate on the underage marriage problem: how widespread is it? Are there any numbers or estimations? Which countries are the ones with more cases? Etc. More likely this data is not disclosed officially by the islamist countries, but you may have sources.

Peace to you, even if I don't share your current beliefs nor your political ideology.

Thomas,
I agree with you that if Muhammad had an encounter with anyone in that cave, it was Satan. Rushdie nailed that perfectly in his book Satanic Verses where he points out the incident where Muhammad cancelled three verses from the Quran after first claiming they were recited by Gabriel but then declaring that he had been fooled by Satan. Rushdie's observation was that if Muhammad could not tell between Satan and Gabriel for those three verses, how could he tell for any of the remaining.

However, coming to your question to Yasser. A good exposition of that is at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir
See the Etymology section.

yasseryousufi OF C-M CRISSIS AA HALF THE WORLD 1-13-11 10:55 AM

You wrote, "Do you know the meaning of Kafir is concealer of truth."

Kaf·ir   /ˈkæfər, ˈkeɪfər, ˈkɑ-/ Show Spelled
[kaf-er, key-fer, kah-] Show IPA

–noun, plural -irs, ( especially collectively ) -ir.
1. Also called Nuristani. a member of an Indo-European people of Nuristan.
2. ( lowercase ) Islam . an infidel or unbeliever.
3. Kaffir ( def. 1 ) .
4. ( lowercase ) Also, kaffir. Also called kafir corn . a grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor caffrorum, having stout, short-jointed, leafy stalks, introduced into the U.S. from southern Africa.

World English Dictionary
Kaffir or Kafir (ˈkæfə)

— n , pl -firs , -fir
1. taboo (in southern Africa) any Black African
2. offensive (among Muslims) a non-Muslim or infidel

usage In South Africa the use of this word is nowadays completely taboo, and is indeed actionable in the courts. It is also advisable not to use the word in any of the compounds to which it gave rise.

Kafir or Kafir

— n

usage In South Africa the use of this word is nowadays completely taboo, and is indeed actionable in the courts. It is also advisable not to use the word in any of the compounds to which it gave rise.

Kafir (ˈkæfə)

— n , pl -irs , -ir
1. another name for the Nuri
2. a variant spelling of Kaffir

[C19: from Arabic; see Kaffir ]

I looked up the word "Kafir" and in where I looked it up there is nothing about "concealer of truth", care to respond?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

If any Kafir does read this, please notice that this great religion allows "rape" of nine year old female children. How low or how more disgustingly cruel can it get?

Can't be you might say, but then you may not have read what I had posted earlier. Look at the Islam qa link I posted at January 12, 2011 5:41 PM. Notice what the Fatwa giver (A learned Muslim Mufti) says: "If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger.

The marriage may be consummated even without her consent!!! How low can a human sink? It is islamically legal for an adult muslim male to rape a nine year old child if the child's father had married her off !!!

Khan Bahadur YasserYusufi Sahib:

I showed you that the age of marriage for girls in Pakistan is 16 years OR the girl has attained puberty. Girls as young as three years have attained puberty. I showed you that is Islamic Sharia. It is now law in pakistan that young girls can marry. Why is that Islamic Sharia. I show you Fatwas showing that is because of Muhammad's marriage to Aiesha. I show you examples from all over the muslim world of similar situations. I show you a Baharani woman condeming the Mullahs over thighing infants.

And you now want me to waste my time looking up the case of where a 10 or 12 year old girl had married an adult neighbor and the court upheld the marriage citing Muhammad's marriage to Aiesha. Why should I do that? You brain is frozen. I can spend time looking that reference and you will make some other excuse.

I expose Islam, and any Kafir who will read this exchange will understand the evil that is in Islam and the psychology of Muslims such as yourself.

So I will not waste any more of my time on this, because as the saying goes you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink. I show you conclusively that muslims do not agree with you or with that jackass Amir Ali and you are whining for me to show more links.

Best of Luck.

Kafir,

Why do you always jump from one one point to another when I challenge you? Do you know the meaning of Kafir is concealer of truth. You make every attempt to do so in your posts. But I am all too familiar with all your tricks by now. So I wont be drawn into your childish games of jumping from one issue to another without clearing or conceding previous ones.

Here is what you said earlier when you fired your first argument;

"Even your Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan does not accept your assertion. They accept that mohammad * aiesha when she was nine."

I refuse to go ahead with this argument unless you either provide me a proof or concede you made that up. I dont speak for Yemeni's. They are a tribal society anyway who fuse and confuse religion with culture. I can speak for Pakistan. The Constitution of Pakistan makes it clear that no laws can be made in contradiction with Quran and Sunnah. If the Shariah Court had passed such an edict as you claim, punishment for underage marriages would never have been possible in Pakistan. By the way the link I posted deals with facts not opinions. There is nothing in it that you can prove to be false. Don't make it a competition between copying and pasting stuff as I can do that better than you. You made an allegation, I provided you with ample proof that its a false allegation. Instead of challenging my facts you make the same allegation from another source. This isn't how debates work panditjee. Otherwise no arguments can ever be settled. Clear up the things you bring up first, then we move to next step.

cont'd

This is one of the links I could not get through earlier (hopefully it gets through now)

7. http://www.memritv.org/report/en/1568.htm
Bahraini Women's Rights Activist Ghada Jamshir Attacks Islamic Clerics for Issuing Fatwas Authorizing Sexual Abuse of Infants

[[Ghada Jamshir: "Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah according to the following classification: 'Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs.' They have: 'Pleasure from sexual touching,' 'pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts.' 'Pleasure from a little girl.' Do you know what 'pleasure from a little girl' means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four."

Interviewer: "Let's not go into details..."

Ghada Jamshir: "Let me tell you what 'pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs' means..."

Interviewer: "Don't give me the details..."

Ghada Jamshir: "This is a violation of children's rights! This constitutes sexual assault of the girl. What does 'pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs' mean? It means deriving sexual pleasure from an infant. How old is an infant? One year, a year and a half, a few months?

"Is it conceivable for a grown man to have sex with an infant girl? And you people tell me that the Islamic Shari'a authorizes this? Forget about the mut'ah. Let's talk about misyar. What do misyar marriages mean? You said that I'm a Sunni and that's why I'm attacking the Shiites. No!"

Interviewer: "Some people claim that." ]]

I cannot seem to get the third post with all its links to be accepted by the WAPO for some reason.

In short, Yasser don't convince us, go tell the muslims around the world that they have it wrong and you and DR. Amir Ali have it right.

cont'd

4. Dr. Zakir Naik of Islamic Peace TV telling that the age of marriage in Islam is attainment of Puberty and no minimum age: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY0VP2zdxuw

5. Here is a Fatwa from Islam QA
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/22442 :
[[The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim; Muslim says ‘seven years’)

The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).]]

6. Fatwa from Indonesia that a girl of any age can get married:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/nu-fatwa-declares-underage-girls-can-marry-to-build-family-values/365993

[[Cholil Nafis, secretary of the committee for religious issues for this past week’s 32nd NU congress, said the gathering had agreed that there should be no age restrictions on marriage because sacred Islamic verses or regulations had not stipulated a minimum age.

“They can get married at any age, even girls who haven’t started menstruating,” he said. “And they can have intimate relationships and intercourse, as long as they are able.”

Cholil said Islamic law only suggested that marriages would be better after a woman had her first period.]]

The best thing for Christian, Muslim, and other religious leaders to do is to urge their constituents, those indoctrinated into any religion, to become un-affiliated during the time of their service in public office (something which would best become law), not to test and to strengthen their faith, but rather to comply with the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that our government not “endorse” any religion.

Regulations could require that public officials claim no religious affiliation, which, in view of world history and current military capacities, may be for the betterment of the country and for the sake of humankind. Organized religion should cease and desist in terms of being a participant in government, but it should be an integral part of 21st century education and world history, in the Arabian Peninsula and North America inclusive.

All U.S. schools, public and private, should require comparative religion as a course no later than about the 7th grade, and again in senior high school. There should be national guidelines for these world history courses. Instruction should include the role of religion in each war dating back to an established year, defined by the beginning of written history. For all public schools, we could require instruction in each of at least six major world religions, and require equal instruction time (number of hours) for each religion. Through this simple measure, by improving public education, we as Americans will more universally understand a critically important part of world history, and would be better able to anticipate/obviate any kind of religious or religiously-motivated future war.

Unless there are serious repercussions, it will not be clear to every U.S. citizen that this is in fact a crime, and why it is a crime under U.S. law. Our criminal laws on this point are intended to deter or to prevent, e.g., what Germany did to Jews in WW2. Therefore, those US officials who committed these offenses, post 9/11, should be detained and prosecuted under existing federal statutes enacted for very good historical reasons. They should go before federal judges. That would help make this not happen again. Our nation, widely known as the world’s melting pot, was previously a model in terms of religious tolerance.

An end to the "war on terror" will come when we begin to purge from public office and prosecute each public official who incited Americans to fear or to hate a recognized world religion such as by repeatedly associating that religion with "terrorism," or by suggesting it is the enemy. Those who did this are in fact “terrorists,” and traitors, posing as public servants. Each speech they delivered was recorded, and will help to prove their criminal intent to foment hatred of, and war against, a specific religion. Indeed, if this goes unpunished, it will be the surest and quickest route to our self-annihilation. This is why these acts are deemed, among other things, treasonous, and the perpetrators must be branded as traitors.

The U.S. Department of Justice, for their part, should identify the worst offenders among public officials, and endeavor to prosecute perhaps a dozen or two of them, ideally Democratic and Republican officials in roughly equal numbers to ensure enforcement of the law is not seen as politically motivated. Officials from both parties seemed to participate in this most diabolic activity in roughly equal numbers.

As the prospect of the U.S. being engaged in a perpetual religious war becomes all too real, it is time for our government, educational institutions, and national media to also step up to the plate--i.e., man-up, and admit their role in fueling and causing this terrible, un-winable campaign.

It should be part of the future oath of offices in all U.S. government service, and incorporated into executive and legislative service training, to not favor or endorse one religion over another in the context of any speech or statement. This is the standard of intelligence we should now be able to expect from every local and national government official; it should also be the standard of intelligence we use to correct public/private educational institutions and the national media to the extent they played a role in this inconceivable scheme.

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib:

This post is coming in three separate posts because WAPO does not allow too many links in one post.

I showed you Sheik Muhammad al Munnajjid an Official in the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contradicting you directly.
You Ignored him and post a lengthy nonsense from some Amir Ali. The laws of Muslim countries are based on what Muslims think is the Islam and not what some jackass wishes it to be. I show you what is actually in Islamic countries.

1. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14588&size=A

A "fatwa" against Yemeni law setting minimum age for marriage
The question of the minimum age for marriage in Yemen was brought to the attention of world public opinion last April, following the case of Nojud Mohammed Ali, an 8-year-old girl who requested and obtained a divorce after being forced to marry a 30-year-old man.

News Yemen reports that the 17 signers of the "fatwa" claim that the law has no Islamic foundation and violates Sharia, the Islamic law, which the Constitution of the country affirms as the basis of all of its laws. "The marriage age," says the assistant secretary general of the Islah party, Mohammad Assadi, "is an Islamic rule, and political parties cannot intervene in such affairs."
******

An EIGHT YEAR OLD Divorcee!!! And a Fatwa that no minimum age can be set. Marriage is at attainment of Puberty.

2. Age of Marriage in Pakistan: is 16 Years OR (underline that OR) has attained puberty.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/pakistan.htm

3. "The Iranian Council of Guardians has ruled that girls as young as 9 can be married with parental permission, quashing an attempt by the country's reformist Parliament to raise the minimum age to 15 for girls and 18 for boys.

The council, the oversight body that rules whether legislation complies with Muslim law, said the measure passed by Parliament late last month was contrary to Islamic law.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2872/is_1_27/ai_71563378/

cont'd

Professor Akbar Ahmed wrote:

"It is a time for Christian and Muslim leaders to actually step into the arena by going into the Muslim world where the conflicts are taking place..." For purposes of completeness, and as a show of even-handedness, the call to action should further include Christian and Muslim leaders simultaneously going into the Christian world where the conflicts are being [created][caused][launched]...

It is also time that we, as a people, Americans, take action to hold our public officials accountable for their participation in fomenting religious hatred, America's growing 'war,’ where the enemy was cast as a recognized world religion. As most educated and attentive people understand, al Qaeda was created clearly as a euphemism for Islam.

It is time we further criminalize, or increase the penalties regarding U.S. laws prohibiting the incitement of, religious hatred. But first we must prosecute, under existing federal criminal statutes, officials who rallied Americans to fear or to hate a major world religion following 9/11. A number of our appointed/elected officials actually created terror, by illegally demonizing a recognized world religion while holding public office, and repeatedly associated that religion, and only that religion, with terrorism. The analogous crime would be feloniously yelling fire in a crowded, multi-story theatre having a single exit, where the perpetrator understood there was no fire. The immediate consequences of these official crimes--i.e., inciting fear/hatred of a religion, was terror, panic, and indiscriminate violence, on a much larger scale than the burning down of a packed movie-house. These criminal acts directly resulted in the annihilation of the most secular Middle East nation (Iraq)--then uninvolved in religious conflicts, having no affiliation with al Qaeda, and having a Christian Vice President, Teraq Aziz; ironically, we turned Iraq into a quasi-religious state. Just the mistaken war in Iraq had a price tag which included the dismemberment of about 50,000 U.S. soldiers, and which arguably destroyed our economy and our prestige as a nation respecting the rules of law and war.

Where a U.S. public official demonizes a recognized world religion, or otherwise creates terror among the masses, this must be treated as a strictly criminal matter. Inciting people to wage a religious war has been an almost effortless thing for public officials to provoke in virtually all parts of the world throughout human history. The consequences are typically bank-breaking and profoundly violent, which is why most civilized nations deem incitement of religious war a high crime. Enforcement of such an anti-terror law is required to prevent future calamity and mayhem. Unless public officials are prosecuted for these heinous crimes, fringe members of the legislative and executive branches may continue to demonize a major world religion and all but declare it the enemy.

http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/AyeshasAge.html

Age of Ayesha (RA) (PART III)

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

Neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Age of Ayesha (RA) (PART II)

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

Here's the truth about age of Ayesha (RA) (PART I)

The age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective standpoint. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

Kafir,

Your usual hypocrisy and deceit wont take you too far. Atleast with me! I dont hate all Hindus. I never said "Shameless Lousy Hindus". Go read what I wrote again. A man of Hindu faith can be both shameless and lousy (like you are) and there's nothing wrong in pointing that out. How do you know I hate freemasons? What do you know about freemasons?

With regards to age of Ayesha, can we have the ruling of Federal Shariat Court in Pakistan that you cited? If it were true, under age marriages in Pakistan would not have been a crime. You dont know anything about Pakistan except for the jihadwatch.com snippets you read from the internet.

Khan Bahadur YasserYusufi Sahib:

It is understandable that you would hate Free Masons. You have already shown that you hate the "shameless lousy hindus". You cannot help it. You have been taught all non-Muslims from your childhood. Islam does that. Islam teaches hate for the Kafirs.

Now you write: "Regarding Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha (RA). It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't married to Prophet Muhammad at 6 years age. It was a normal marriage. The Hadith quoted in this regard is a zaeef hadith as such cannot be believed. "

You have merely proven what I had said. With all your intelligence, your education, your knowledge, you are unable to think when it comes to Islam. You get brain freeze. If it is beyond a shadow of a doubt, then many many muslims do not have a clue since they don't agree with you at all.

Listen to this sheikh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13gtjjDEgE
at time 1:30.

I can show you tens of links on the net showing you muslims from all over the world accept what you consider Daef hadiath and are marrying young girls following Muhammad's example. Even your Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan does not accept your assertion. They accept that mohammad fudged aiesha when she was nine.

So go tell the Muslims that they are wrong and their laws in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, etc. etc. are wrong.

You are merely lying to the Kafirs here.

I never agreed with you on this topic before.

A shameless lousy Hindu Pandit Maharaj
AKafir.

Kafir,

You bring up such childish arguments to the table. Who is Kemal Atturk one may ask? How does a pagan freemason become an authority on a religous figure? Of course he would say what he says. It was politically expedient for him since he wanted to lessen the influence of Islam in order to gain more power for himself. Do you form your opinions on the basis of what one or two people say? What about the thousands of neutral western scholars who are all praise for Prophet Muhammad. Do they matter to you? Wasn't he declared the #1 most influential leader of the world not long ago?

Regarding Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha (RA). It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn't married to Prophet Muhammad at 6 years age. It was a normal marriage. The Hadith quoted in this regard is a zaeef hadith as such cannot be believed. I think we've debated this before as well. I posted a thesis on this subject. You seemed to agree with me back then. If you want to debate this further, show me your proof.

Khan Bahadur YasserYousufi Sahib:

You first wrote: "if you really wanna debate with me come with one issue at a time. Lets see if you got the balls!"

I offered you to select what ever you felt like. To which you said:

"I am not here to give free education. You are the ones loosing sleep over us muslims not me. Lets hear your issues with us one at a time."

Okay. My first issue:

You obviously are a very intelligent, smart and well educated person. How can you possibly respect someone even Kemal Attaturk called an Immoral Bedouin? [[According to French historian J. Benoist-Mechin, Ataturk stated: "through the abusive interpretation of ignorant and filthy priests......Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" (from "Jihad", Paul Fregosi).]]

One of the reasons he is immoral is because he was dreaming marrying an infant of 1 or 2 year old when he is in his forties. He marries a six year old daughter of his follower, Abu Bakr, who rejected his offer first because the pagans did not marry their brothers children and he considered your mohammad his brother, and then goes ahead and fudges her when she is nine and still playing with dolls when he is over fifty. In any decent society a fifty year who goes around fudging a nine year old girl would be thrown in jail. Not only that but he asks another of his followers why he was marrying a matron and not a child?

So tell the Kafirs why a smart and educated Muslims like yourself suddenly lose their brains when it comes to as Kemal Attaturk calls an immoral Bedouin?

yasseryousufi Part I

You wrote, "You deliberately left the real reason I call you a Hallucinating Christian Nut. How come you didn't bring up your meetings with your holy ghost ordering you spread your brand (not of jesus christ) of christianity??"

You seem to have misread what I have written over time.

I said that the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000 and revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and I also said that God the Father or Dad, as Jesus instructed us as to our relationship with God to call Him, came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000.

I did not say that the "Holy Spirit ordered me", I said that I had a dream that I know was from God, whether it was God Himself or a messenger I do not know, and I was told that "only I could say it".

I was not "ordered to say it".

By the way, Jesus's last name is not Christ, Christ is a title meaning the "anointed one" or "Messiah".

As far as the Catholic Eucharist being Jesus, Jesus flat out said, "This is My Body..." and "This is My Blood...".

You then wrote, "Nice job hiding behind Jesus."

I don't know exactly what you mean by this but we are to "walk with Jesus", side by side as it were, He did say, "Take My Yoke upon you...", as you may or may not know, a yoke is a device for two to "work as one".

You then wrote, "The Christianity Jesus brought was turned upside down by Pagan worshiping Romans and Greeks within its first hundred years."

This is merely your opinion, when Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it", Jesus expressed the whole "mission" of HIS CHURCH in this statement and I believe Jesus knew what He was saying.

It seems that it took satan approximately 600 years to call God a liar and to claim God-Incarnate as his prophet but God is not petty like satan and it does not matter to God what one believes, Truth is Truth whether one believes it or not, as I have said numerous times, the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

As I have also said many times, It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

God looks at the person, not the "label".

yasseryousufi Part II

You then wrote, "They killed every non christian they could lay their hands on spread the message of Jesus."

Did they?

Instead of replying to the question that I asked you just inserted Christianity in place of islam and wrote, "Maybe it is not the "sense of reality in one's mind" but the reality in the world that could bring one to the conclusion that Christianity is indeed not only prone to violence but seems to rejoice in that violence and that Christianity is not just a "religion" but a political ideology geared to world domination and the "subjugation" of the entire human race, any thoughts on this????"

Is it islam or Christianity that is suicide bombing a lot of places?

Is it islam or Christianity that seems to allow others to practice their beliefs?

Is it islam or Christianity, in this day and age, that is attempting to or already have imposed a "theocratic" government in various places on planet earth?

Is it islam or Christianity that is driving out the "other" from various places on this earth by "unnice" means?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ThomasBaum,

You deliberately left the real reason I call you a Hallucinating Christian Nut. How come you didn't bring up your meetings with your holy ghost ordering you spread your brand (not of jesus christ) of christianity?? The ones you have after having that extra pint of vodka!

Nice job hiding behind Jesus. The Christianity Jesus brought was turned upside down by Pagan worshiping Romans and Greeks within its first hundred years. They killed every non christian they could lay their hands on spread the message of Jesus. The Iraq war was given biblical references of war between good and evil, it was called crusade, both Tony Blair and George Bush got the go-ahead for them from their respective gods in person (references to be provided upon request). Is it just a coincidence that the 40 something coalition of the willing consisted almost exclusively of Christian countries??

Maybe it is not the "sense of reality in one's mind" but the reality in the world that could bring one to the conclusion that Christianity is indeed not only prone to violence but seems to rejoice in that violence and that Christianity is not just a "religion" but a political ideology geared to world domination and the "subjugation" of the entire human race, any thoughts on this????

Pandit Kafir Maharaj,

You really are too cute! I am not here to give free education. You are the ones loosing sleep over us muslims not me. Lets hear your issues with us one at a time.

SO Yasser I throw the gauntlet at you lets debate "Miraj". Lets call it "Was MOs 'Miraj' just a 'Mirage'?" Just one topic lets have a go at it.

---Secular

Isra or Mairaj was both a physical and spiritual journey which took Prophet Muhammad from Mecca first to the farthest mosque (most people agree its Masjid-al-haram) and then to the heavens and eventually to meet Allah (SWT) himself. It was Allah's miracle for Prophet Muhammad just as Allah had blessed Adam, Noah, Jonah, Virgin Mary, Moses, Jesus, Solomon and others before Prophet Muhammad with their own miracles. Thats my understanding of the "Mairaj". But it really is pointless to argue this with a non-religous person. However I am taking your word to see if you are indeed capable of having a sober debate. Lets hear what you've got to say.

@Akafir,

We are in agreement on the privileged state of this country versus other oppressed countries. We are not perfect, but precisely because of that we should strive for better. My main point is that we cannot forget the suffering of some minorities in our country, be it gays, blacks or immigrants.

As for Atlas Shrugs, the site is not friendly to look up for the photographs you mentioned. Could you please send me a link to the photos if you have one handy?

I mentioned Atlas Shrugs but did not post a link. So,

Link to Atlas Shrugs collection of Pictures and the level of incitement to violence from the left during Bush years:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/01/the-face-of-hate.html

@Justacomment:

USA is not perfect and is not a Utopia. I doubt any human society ever will. If the treatment of Gays is what you consider treating people as second class citizens, then we, Americans as a people are doing pretty darn good. Not where either side of the argument wants the society or the culture to be, but the relations are evolving at a pace that cultures and socities can change.
Compare this from Iran to the Bahais:
http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/7307
or an ordinary hindu in Quetta pakistan:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\01\11\story_11-1-2011_pg7_11

As far as the message of the extreme right goes, you may want to see the collection of photographs from the demonstrations of "extreme"(?) left during Bush years at Atlas Shrugs. It makes the extreme right look downright mild. I am still hoping that a lot of this incivility is being driven by the technological changes of the new media more than any real societal changes in the people. Handling a 24/7 news cycle is not easy and still show a profit for many. The crazy slanging match at Giffords tragedy instead of mourning is an example of the new time course of how information is handled. It took a few hours and couple of column cycle for both sides to return to some semblance of civility.

Righteousness and piety is a tool that the power hungry have always used and will likely always use to achieve their goals. It is not limited to the religious only.

One of these days USA may devolve into a tyranny, and of course the official press and the establishment will be praising the oppression in glowing terms as has been the case in any despotic rule, but not yet. There are enough Americans who feel strongly enough and there is enough disagreement among the Americans that the danger of the Americans walking lock step is hopefully remote.

Akafir,

AKF:“Who is that "we" in "we do not give a pass"? I do not fully understand you. I assume you are talking about Iraq.”

Your assumption is correct.

AKF:"Are you saying that Colin Powell is a christian extremist when he gave that talk at the UN claiming that he was sure that iraq had WMD? Who is "they" in they claim god told them to do it. Is Condoleeza rice a christian extremist? Is Obama and Hillary Clinton christian extremists?"

I don't believe that Colin and Condoleeza are christian extremists. Other members of that administration yes. Hillary no, Obama don't know for sure. As an opportunist politician he shows himself as a secular and non-extremist religious person.

AKF:“Are you saying that the christian extremists controlling the Bush adminstration went to Iraq to kill Muslims?”

They wanted the oil, they wanted war for political and economical gain, they wanted control of the region, but yes, they also wanted 9-11 avenge against the Islam. Bush himself said he talked with god (or something like this).

AKF:“I am sorry but I do not get exactly what comparison you are making between the institutionalized hate motivated by the canonical books of Islam for the non-Muslims in the laws of ALL Muslim countries and the often inept foreign policy execution of the US Administrations.”

It's not a comparison, it is a fact that even if our constitution and laws mandate separation of government and religion(s), the bible is the super-consititutional mandate that many of the right wing follow. Not to the point as the islamist countries, but they are trying to catch up.

AKF:"It is sad that in the last decade or so the civility of discussion in the USA has diminshed to the point where FOX subscribers and MSNBC subscribers have to demonize each other."

You are right, but again, FOX outscores many times the MSNBC team. FOX indirectly and sometimes not that much indirectly incite to kill members of the other team and to dismantle the government as such. The laggard MSNBC team just present inconvenient facts but offend the enemies beyond civility, sometimes. Disclaimer: this is my impression because lately I don't watch either frequently.

AKF:"You may very well be right but my experience does not agree with your assessment that "Nevertheless at the end the results are similar." So which minorities are treated as second class humans in our powerful democracy?”

How do you like gays for starters?

AKF:"I am not religious, and I would be extremely worried if the separation between religion and state was under threat in the USA. I know there are some who want that separation reduced but so far they are a very small minority. Democracy is only as good as the people who are in it. Vigilance is the price but that is a continuing dialog that Americans will have to have."

Akafir, agree, not extremely worried, but worried. You are doing an excellent job educating Americans about the perils of imported theocratic oppression.

yasseryousufi Part I

I wrote, "I don't believe I have ever seen Kafir speak of or "being obsessed with hate for muslims" but he has pointed out the "hate" that seems to be embedded in "islam"."

You responded, "It takes a Hallucinating Christian fanatic to bail out a Hindu fanatic for there shared hatred of Islam. If you dont believe kafir is a muslim hater could you explain why he posts 100 anti muslim posts a day and never says a word against Radical Christians, Radical Jews and Radical hindus and Radical Atheists?"

Seems as if he is pointing out things that are in the news, is he not?

Maybe he is leaving the "Radicals" of all persuasions alone and speaking about what some of the "moderates" are doing but you should be asking him not me.

Do you think that I am a "Hallucinating Christian fanatic" because I speak of things that I have experienced and have pointed out that the Jesus portrayed in the bible bears very little resemblance to the Jesus portrayed in the koran?

Do you think that I am a "Hallucinating Christian fanatic" for pointing out that since God is a Trinity and that Jesus is God-Incarnate that if it was a supernatural being that came to Muhammed that it most likely was satan?

Do you think that I am a "Hallucinating Christian fanatic" since I have stated that the GOOD NEWS that Jesus asked us to proclaim is, indeed, GOOD NEWS FOR ALL?

You also wrote, "He was a FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST who killed a liberal Jewish woman who was on Sarah Palin's hitlist."

Even tho some of your "facts" may not be quite accurate, did he yell "god is great"? Did others come up to "congratulate" him? Did people shower him with rose petals?

yasseryousufi Part II

You then wrote, "The violence wreaked upon humanity by White Christianity ever since its inception, no other religion/race can claim even a fraction of it."

I happen to be alive now, not in the past and I can neither change the past nor live anyone else's life but was it "White Christianity" that did what you say or was it people?

Many people use many "justifications" for their actions but did Jesus actually teach some of the things that are done in His Name?

Seems as if "some" of what people do in the name of islam is actually taught in the koran, is this true or not?

You then wrote, "Even today you have hate preaching evangelicals railing against muslim, calling for taking over their lands, bombing Mecca etc. everyday."

Yes, I know and it is not just "hate preaching evangelicals" either, have you ever wondered why?

You then wrote, "To think of all the murders Christians did in the name of Christianity for you to turn around and say Islam is a violent religion, you have to be a fanatical Christian who has no sense of reality in his mind."

Maybe it is not the "sense of reality in one's mind" but the reality in the world that could bring one to the conclusion that islam is indeed not only prone to violence but seems to rejoice in that violence and that islam is not just a "religion" but a political ideology geared to world domination and the "subjugation" of the entire human race, any thoughts on this?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Khan YasserYousufi Sahib,

Who has ever stopped you from ever presenting an argument on any topic? Go ahead, pick a topic you would like to educate me on, and begin.

The "Shameless lousy hindu" Akafir.

This is an interesting debate going on between the pious muslim Yasser, the burned out former muslim Kafir, devout christian Paul Thomas Baum, & fairly independent minded Just-a-comment.

Kafir, I find just-a-comment's comment (pun intended) about our home grown bigots is on the mark. His/her warning was in general was saying if the current western democracies were to ever to become more pious & religious the bigots who lead the choir in the pews would prove to be just as horrible as the mullahs & imams of the 57 dar-ul-islams. No one claimed that Powell or Bush are x'tian extremists. But there indeed were some in the positions of influence in the Shrub's administration who were motivated as such. Shrub himself, though not a bigot is a deluded man, about the sky-daddy speaking to him.

Of course we have our own pious muslim who fills the air with innuendo, invective, & ad hominem against all the bloggers who oppose his viewpoint. Was it really necessary that he should call Kafir, a liar or Baum a hallucinating christian fanatic? Instead of or in spite of calling names, if he had stated facts to buttress his arguments it would have been welcome. It is not that way but just a barrage of name calling is all we get. His signature refrain is you are throwing too many things at islam, if only the opponent will stick to one topic I would counter them. He pulled the same on me. He asked me to first of all show some respect to his beloved prophet for him to engage me in any debate. I told him, I am not here to coddle him with his superstitions, I cannot bring myself to respect stupid ideas of his or anyone elses. I can respect and individual, but not necessarily the ideas. So goes for public and historical figures. Those two stand on their own merits and evidence.

His constant accusation that Kafir is a Hindu, etc, etc does not further the debate. It may even be OK if he threw a few invectives, if it was accompanied with facts. I challenged him, & the inanity queen Jihadist how do they interpret MO's Miraj. Was it to be taken metaphorically, allegorically, or literally? There wasn't a peep about it. SO Yasser I throw the gauntlet at you lets debate "Miraj". Lets call it "Was MOs 'Miraj' just a 'Mirage'?" Just one topic lets have a go at it. I even promise you I will not call your beloved MO a "Liar" or "Monster" while we are debating the Miraj/Mirage. Are you up to it?

I doubt I make 100 posts a day. Many in my close family are muslims. The love of my life is a muslim.
---Kafir

Gosh, I though we were over this Madrassa educated former muslim canard. You are one crazy liar. Btw.....if you really wanna debate with me come with one issue at a time. Lets see if you got the balls!

YasserYousufi writes: "If you dont believe kafir is a muslim hater could you explain why he posts 100 anti muslim posts a day and never says a word against Radical Christians, Radical Jews and Radical hindus and Radical Atheists?"

I doubt I make 100 posts a day. Many in my close family are muslims. The love of my life is a muslim. I am not anti muslim but I do detest Islam, its Allah and its Muhammad. The reason is simple why I don't say anything against the radicals of the other religions; They do not threaten to kill me or my fellow citizens. I do not know of any of those faiths who attacked my adopted country on 9/11. I do not know of any of those who are inciting other to kill Americans where ever they find as Awlaki is doing or as others are doing. I do not find that the canonical texts of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity or Sikhism spread hate for the non-believers for all time to come as do the Koran and the hadeeth. Your comparison is asking why I am warning people about a puff adder and not raising a hue and cry about a gnat. Sure the gnat bite and is unpleasent but it is not in the same threat level as the puff adder. Islam is an existential threat to the west if the Kafirs remain ignorant about the threat.

YasserYousufi writes: "He was a FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST who killed a liberal Jewish woman who was on Sarah Palin's hitlist."

That is incorrect. WAPO Chris Cilliza states:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html
"In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy -- a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness.

Loughner's decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party."

Islam has killed Quarter of a billion Kafirs so far in its history and Yasser has not said a word on that. Why?
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/tears-of-jihad/
Instead it is play the victim as every day. How many Muslims did Saddam kill in Iraq? How many iraqi babies Saddam allowed to die? Did Saddam or any Pakistani ever write or complain at the UN or the OIC about the atrocities that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc were doing on their own people? Can Yasser the pious Muslim care to provide a single statement from the Pakistani Government condemning the evil acts of Saddam's sons when they were feeding Muslim Iraqis live into grain harversters?

Go ahead Yasser, let us see some evidence that any OIC country ever said a word.

Justacomment writes: "But the difference with you is that we do not give a pass to other religions, specially some Christians denominations in USA. Because we live in a a powerful democracy, the way to oppress and exploit is more subtle. Nevertheless at the end the results are similar. For example, Christian leaders don't yell kill the infidel, but after crafting ridiculous reasons on why to invade a country, they claim that god told them to do it, just like in their ancient book."

Who is that "we" in "we do not give a pass"? I do not fully understand you. I assume you are talking about Iraq. Are you saying that Colin Powell is a christian extremist when he gave that talk at the UN claiming that he was sure that iraq had WMD? Who is "they" in they claim god told them to do it. Is Condoleeza rice a christian extremist? Is Obama and Hillary Clinton christian extremists? Are you saying that the christian extremists controlling the Bush adminstration went to Iraq to kill Muslims? I am sorry but I do not get exactly what comparison you are making between the institutionalized hate motivated by the canonical books of Islam for the non-Muslims in the laws of ALL Muslim countries and the often inept foreign policy execution of the US Administrations.

It is sad that in the last decade or so the civility of discussion in the USA has diminshed to the point where FOX subscribers and MSNBC subscribers have to demonize each other.

You may very well be right but my experience does not agree with your assessment that "Nevertheless at the end the results are similar." So which minorities are treated as second class humans in our powerful democracy? I am not religious, and I would be extremely worried if the separation between religion and state was under threat in the USA. I know there are some who want that separation reduced but so far they are a very small minority. Democracy is only as good as the people who are in it. Vigilance is the price but that is a continuing dialog that Americans will have to have.

I don't believe I have ever seen Kafir speak of or "being obsessed with hate for muslims" but he has pointed out the "hate" that seems to be embedded in "islam".

---ThomasBaum

It takes a Hallucinating Christian fanatic to bail out a Hindu fanatic for there shared hatred of Islam. If you dont believe kafir is a muslim hater could you explain why he posts 100 anti muslim posts a day and never says a word against Radical Christians, Radical Jews and Radical hindus and Radical Atheists?

"It does not seem that this has anything to do with terrorism done in the name of religion and then condoned by that religion which seems to be the case with the assassination in Pakistan."

---ThomasBaum

Take off your rose colored glasses Mr. Baum. He was a FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST who killed a liberal Jewish woman who was on Sarah Palin's hitlist. How long are you gonna stick your head in the sand. The violence wreaked upon humanity by White Christianity ever since its inception, no other religion/race can claim even a fraction of it. Even today you have hate preaching evangelicals railing against muslim, calling for taking over their lands, bombing Mecca etc. everyday. Your former President who had similar hallucinations of God in his dream said that God came in his dream and called him to attack the heathens in Iraq, resulting in the death of a million arabs. To think of all the murders Christians did in the name of Christianity for you to turn around and say Islam is a violent religion, you have to be a fanatical Christian who has no sense of reality in his mind.

Akafir, you said:

"Does anyone know of a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Zorastrian, Buddhist, Pagan leader that is demanding that his state or nation better be governed by a religious law and a theocracy?"

In relation to Islam I think I got your message. Islamic religion and it leaders are a class apart of kill-until-no-infidels-exists. They still live in the middle ages. Their followers are victims of day-to-day control and exploitation and at the same time a good portion of followers are facilitators of the religion ultimate objectives.

I cannot talk for other posters, but I fully agree with you on that.

But the difference with you is that we do not give a pass to other religions, specially some Christians denominations in USA. Because we live in a a powerful democracy, the way to oppress and exploit is more subtle. Nevertheless at the end the results are similar. For example, Christian leaders don't yell kill the infidel, but after crafting ridiculous reasons on why to invade a country, they claim that god told them to do it, just like in their ancient book.

Any god that requires killing for his sake is a very small god indeed, and not worthy of the respect of men and women.

Steven T Abell
Author of DAYS IN MIDGARD: A THOUSAND YEARS ON

There are so many Christians and Muslims, what difference is it if they kill each other en masse?

Who cares? They both believe they'll be in heaven forever. Slaughtering each other will help one another get to paradise sooner.

The more dead christian and muslims there are, the better it is for the world.

Christians and Muslims should go to war on a mass scale and slaughter each other.

At least fewer people will believe in such idiotic religions, freeing the world from ignorance, making the world a better place.

Eezmamata writes: "You really are as dumb as you look, and as self-righteous.

Stalin and Mao espoused atheism because they demanded the worship of the believers, and your other silly religions got in their way. They didn't say there is no god, they said they were god.

Lots of things are atheist, putz. An apple is atheist, it means Not Theist."

Well I am glad you "look" very intelligent and well informed, and not self-righteous at all. You just like telling everyone else how stupid they are if they don't agree with your view on faith. Good for you.

"? Or do you want the atheists to play God one more time? Was Stalin and Mao not enough to satisfy your sense of superiority over the religious?..."

You really are as dumb as you look, and as self-righteous.

Stalin and Mao espoused atheism because they demanded the worship of the believers, and your other silly religions got in their way. They didn't say there is no god, they said they were god.

Lots of things are atheist, putz. An apple is atheist, it means Not Theist.

All those communist wackoes, hitlers, pol pots, that freak in north korea, all personality cults, all attended to by the same kind of people who follow religion.

If you can't see these things, then you are one of the crazy people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/08/south-sudan-referendum-bashir-sharia-law

"Bashir recently declared: "If south Sudan secedes, we will change the constitution, and at that time there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity … sharia and Islam will be the main source for the constitution, Islam the official religion and Arabic the official language."
This statement – coupled with his defiant stance on Islamic law after international condemnation of a YouTube video of a woman being flogged by laughing policemen – has caused massive unease among north Sudan's minorities. Bashir said those calling for an investigation into the ill-treatment misunderstood Islam, because "sharia law has always stipulated that one must whip, cut, or kill". "

Does anyone know of a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Zorastrian, Buddhist, Pagan leader that is demanding that his state or nation better be governed by a religious law and a theocracy?

Eezmamata writes: "Yeah, you religious people. Look at these stupid arguments you're all having over delusions and fantasies and just plain crap. And you're so angry you're willing to kill each for it. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, whatever.

And there's never going to be the last shot fired. You have all somehow found in your monstrous holy books permission to kill anybody who doesn't believe in your delusion."

As you so well demonstrate that it is not only the religious who can give into self-righteousness. If you can bring yourself the time to think a little and see what is happening around the world and why.
So do you mind stating who is quoting the Bible, the Vedas, the Garanth, or the Avesta, etc. to justify the killing these days? Not historically, but here in the now. Do you think it is appropriate to point out that Islam and no other religion is taking the name of their God as they behead who they consider the non-believers? Or do you want the atheists to play God one more time? Was Stalin and Mao not enough to satisfy your sense of superiority over the religious?

By the way, I am not religious, but I do not begrudge others who have faith. As Jefforson said:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

As long the separation of state and Church is intact, I have no quibble with the Christians. I do not see any hindus, sikhs, zorastrians, witches, wiccans, pagans, Jews, etc. clamoring to break down that wall that Jefforson bestowed upon us. But I do see the Islamic cry for Sharia. Do you understand what is taking place in Iran and Pakistan at the moment, and what consequences it has for you and yours in good ole USA?

"You people? "

Yeah, you religious people. Look at these stupid arguments you're all having over delusions and fantasies and just plain crap. And you're so angry you're willing to kill each for it. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, whatever.

And there's never going to be the last shot fired. You have all somehow found in your monstrous holy books permission to kill anybody who doesn't believe in your delusion.

"you people are nuts. Try not to kill anyone else when you decide to start killing each other.

Posted by: eezmamata | January 10, 2011 1:21 PM
******

You people?

George Orwell said it well:
"grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." (1942)

Hope you are enjoying being very civilized. Hopefully you do give a second thought to those who are dying and getting injured for life trying to afford you that luxury.

Arif2 writes: "So, according to WAPO Kafir and myself and some others are "Islamophobes" simply for pointing out the flaws of mohammed and his religion islam. How do you label a person like the late governor of Punjab? An IslamoMuslimPhobe? Even Muslims fear this religion. Muslims like these are capable of unleshing something worse than 9/11 without remorse."

Islam in Action around the world in recent days:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12138627

Somalia's al-Shabab bans mixed-sex handshakes
Friday, 7 January 2011

Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab: under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public: the al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,737683,00.html

Taboos and Fear among Muslim Girls
Thursday, 6 January 2011

Young Muslim women are often forced to lead double lives in Europe: they have sex in public restrooms and stuff mobile phones in their bras to hide their secret existences from strict families: they are often forbidden from visiting gynecologists or receiving sex ed: in the worst cases, they undergo hymen reconstruction surgery, have late-term abortions or even commit suicide.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/01/03/afghanistan.mask/?hpt=C1

Afghan women speak out on abuse from behind mask
Monday, 3 January 2011

In a CNN report, Afghan women speak out on abuse from behind mask.

**************
Speak openly and speak plainly about Islam and the muslims around you will kill you. Muslims learn that early and learn that well. What is common to the behavior of the muslim girls and women in Somalia, germany and afghanistan? This is what Islam brings.

you people are nuts. Try not to kill anyone else when you decide to start killing each other.

Kingofkings1

I wrote, "God's Plan, which has already included God becoming One of us, will come to Fruition and God's Plan is, ultimately, for ALL to be in God's Kingdom."

You replied, "Does that mean if I want to properly take care of my pet fishes, I must become one of them?"

I can only guess but does the "fishes" thing refer to Christians and if it does, do you think of Christians as "your pets"?

I also mentioned in the posting that you referred to, that the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

This means that God is a Trinity, that Jesus is God-Incarnate and that the god of islam is satan, seeing as how the god of islam gets mighty upset about anyone referring to God as a Trinity or to anyone as a child of God much less as God-Incarnate, but that it doesn't matter what one's religious affiliation is or if one even has a religious affiliation because God looks at the person, not the "label".

I say that the god of islam is satan because I believe that Muhammed did have a supernatural visitor but it was not God and I do not believe that it was Gabriel either but satan, himself.

The reason that I believe that it was satan is because I do not believe satan trusts any of his cohorts enough to send them in his place.

As I have also mentioned on here before, I do not hold it against Muhammed that he was deceived by satan because satan can come across as "mister nice guy" but as Jesus said, "satan is a liar and a thief", I would add that satan is also a loser, a sore loser.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Does that mean if I want to properly take care of my pet fishes, I must become one of them?"

So is your allah so limited that he cannot choose to become a human? Is he capable of ever becoming like a human? If your allah is so powerful and capable of doing everything, is he capable of ever creating someone like himself? Is your allah capable of thinking of something he cannot do?

Islam does not respect LIFE. They are the only ones who celebrate a killing. Not one celebrated the recent Arizona assassination. Millions of Muslims celebrate the Pakistan governors assassin. Blasphemy against their prophet is far more important than the life of a person. People are not even given a change to prove themselves innocent. If you let islam go wild then what happens in Pakistan will happen in your neighborhood. It is already happening, we witness in the West anyone who criticizes Islam is an "Islamophobe", if the criticism is harsh they are "haters" and extremists and then need protection; what happened to the draw mohammed cartoon woman of facebook? The western media is terrified to print anything that will "upset" the muslims. Our press makes sure they label the koran burning pastor a fool or worse. Hillary quickly labeled the Arizona assassin an "extremist" to appease the muslims.

This woman Asia Bibi was raped for a false acquisition, then imprisoned, she is condemned to death for blasphemy, the world is quiet. Where is her justice, what happened about the Rape? Why is she condemned? In islam rape has quite serious consequences.

I cannot understand how Mr. Ahmed and the likes of Eboo are given permission to write articles praising Islam.

In Islam if you are a Muslim and try to be moderate they Kill you, witness what happened to the governor of Punjab/Pakistan.

So, according to WAPO Kafir and myself and some others are "Islamophobes" simply for pointing out the flaws of mohammed and his religion islam. How do you label a person like the late governor of Punjab? An IslamoMuslimPhobe? Even Muslims fear this religion. Muslims like these are capable of unleshing something worse than 9/11 without remorse.

The fear of Islam is genuine.

Thomasbaum wrote:
God's Plan, which has already included God becoming One of us, will come to Fruition and God's Plan is, ultimately, for ALL to be in God's Kingdom.
-------------------------------------------

Does that mean if I want to properly take care of my pet fishes, I must become one of them?

yasseryousufi

You wrote to Kafir, "I dont think I should even bother arguing with you as I am tired of pointing out your lies."

Seems as if you do not "argue"

Argue: to present reasons for or against a thing
to state the reasons for or against
to maintain in reasoning

with anyone, you just try to "belittle" them and in the process who do you think is being "belittled"?

You then wrote, "Then you wonder why I call you a shameless Hindu??"

Is this another attempt at "belittling"?

You also wrote, "6 people dead so far including a nine year old girl and a US judge in Arizona. The apparent target Democrat Congresswomen had a bullet go through her head. However, the shooter is not a muslim, but a white, partybagging christian nut, so he is not a terrorist, so you are safe america."

It does not seem that this has anything to do with terrorism done in the name of religion and then condoned by that religion which seems to be the case with the assassination in Pakistan.

As I have previously stated: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

God's Plan, which has already included God becoming One of us, will come to Fruition and God's Plan is, ultimately, for ALL to be in God's Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Ahmed sounds like a very nice person who has kumbaya in his heart and has no stomach for the tough job of educating his fellow Muslims- We blew out of proportion the silly Christian Pastor's claim to fame- this leader of some 50 soul's threatened to burn a copy of the Koran- the US press was agog and even our President placed marker. The Pastor withdrew his silly claim.

How does that even belong on the same page as the killing ,by Muslim guard of a Muslim Governor because the Governor had the courage to challenge a trumped up charge bya Muslim woman that a Christian (one of so few) women had Blashfemmed Mohammed.

When the Washington Post reports that Mr. Ahmed and thousands of other influential Muslims have spoken out to fellow Muslims at their Mosques in Muslim countries and condemned the so called Kidnappers of their religion (a//a/ terrorist- then he will have earned the respect of being a courageous religious leader

yasseryousufi

You wrote, "Grow out of your one dimensional world. How many people have to tell you that you sound like a jerk being obsessed with hate for muslims."

I don't believe I have ever seen Kafir speak of or "being obsessed with hate for muslims" but he has pointed out the "hate" that seems to be embedded in "islam".

There is a difference, a BIG difference.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Both of these religions have 'final days' and Braptures and armageddons and all that rot, where the true believers get to spend eternity in a toy store after killing off all the false believers, wrong believers, and unbelievers.

Both. And the believers truly believe it. Some may not believe it so much, but get them in a mixed crowd of christians and muslims and watch how fast they join their own side.

Neither side can win, that's true, but all of us can lose. And you religious monstrosities are going to kill off the human race because you won't abandon your stupid gods and grow up.

There are all kinds of terrorists, militants, insurgents and radicals in all religions and political ideas. The greatest threat are those that start wars that kill thousands upon thousands such as WII and the present Middle East wars.

Of course there is a God. He wrote a book. Problem is what will he do to us when we pass? Some think we will go up to heaven – somewhere up there in the vacuum of space- and live happily ever after next to Jesus or Mohammad. Some may not make it and be confined to a place called hell and burned everlastingly. The Jesus believers consider that their belief system is correct and all the Mohammad believers will go to hell. The Mohammad believers think that the opposite will happen. These beliefs are worth dying for to defend. Obviously very rational thinking is going on here. Me, I prefer Zeus.

Kafir,

Speak for yourself! Not everyone is a hater like you. Americans aren't idiots! You certainly are based on the contents of your childish posts. You dont speak for America anyway. Heck you aren't even an american. You are a Hindu Indian and nothing but a propagandist shill. I have no doubt that you get paid to sit on this forum all day and copy paste JihadWatch.com material.

Posted by: yasseryousufi | January 10, 2011 2:32 AM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Kafir, et al the usual tripe from Mr. yousufi. Typical innuendo, and ad hominem. For so many specifics raised by Kafir, all he can do call names. Those to from his feeble repertoire of insults. Nothing about the islamic scholars', of his puristan, spouting invective of the worst kind. Just insults. That is what you get from the great present day Suleiman of islam. Not that the mythical Suleiman was any better.

Kafir,

Speak for yourself! Not everyone is a hater like you. Americans aren't idiots! You certainly are based on the contents of your childish posts. You dont speak for America anyway. Heck you aren't even an american. You are a Hindu Indian and nothing but a propagandist shill. I have no doubt that you get paid to sit on this forum all day and copy paste JihadWatch.com material.

It seems despite the attempt to confuse the Kafirs by the "moderates" the facts of Islam are getting through slowly but surely:
****
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/radical_chic_PUya0FzJCY624wP11gO3BM

In the Islamic world, it’s moderates who are the minority, not extremists

Specifically, Taseer was supportive of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death for “insulting Muhammad.”

Bibi had offered some fellow farm laborers some water. They refused to drink it because Christian hands apparently make water unclean. An argument followed. She defended her faith, which they took as synonymous with attacking theirs. Later, she says, a mob of her accusers raped her.
Asia Bibi (left), sentenced to death for being Christian, and Pakistan Governor Salman Taseer, shot for defending her.
EPA
Asia Bibi (left), sentenced to death for being Christian, and Pakistan Governor Salman Taseer, shot for defending her.

Naturally, a Pakistani judge sentenced her to hang for blasphemy.

And Governor Taseer, who bravely visited her and sympathized with her plight, had 40 bullets pumped into him by one of his own bodyguards.

“Salmaan Taseer is a blasphemer, and this is the punishment for a blasphemer,” Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri said to the television cameras even as he was being arrested.
...

Many columnists and commentators denounced the murder, but the public’s reaction was often celebratory. A Facebook fan page for Qadri had to be taken down even as it was drawing thousands of followers.

And what of the country’s official guardians of the faith?

A group of more than 500 leading Muslim scholars, representing what The Associated Press describes as a “moderate school of Islam” and the British Guardian calls the “mainstream religious organizations” in Pakistan, not only celebrated the murder but warned that no Muslim should mourn Taseer’s murder or pray for him.

They even went so far as to warn government officials and journalists that the “supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” and so therefore they should all take “a lesson from the exemplary death” of Salman Taseer.
If that’s what counts for religious moderation in Pakistan, I think it’s a little late to be talking about extremists hijacking the religion. The religion has long since been hijacked, and it’s now moving on to even bigger things.

****

Akbar head back to Pakistan and save your Islam before it is too late.

YasserYousufi:

You must really think the American Kafirs are total idiots. Now ("More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers for Governor Salmaan Taseer nor try to lead the prayers") why would these distinguished Muslims tell that Muslims should not offer funeral prayers for Governor Salmaan Taseer nor try to lead the funeral prayers? Why don't you tell the American Kaafirs what could possibly be the reason?

You know that it means that they agree that Salmaan Taseer had committed Blasphemy and was no longer your a precious Muslim. He was now in your words "a Shameless lousy Kafir". Muslim are not to say prayers for a Kafir. Muslims are not even to ask Allah to forgive a dead Kafir. That means these "over 500 Muslim Scholars" agree with the Killer, and they agreed with the lawyers who showered the Killer with Rose Petals, and they agree with the leaders who led rallies across all over Pakistan in support of the Killer.

Or are you trying to tell the Kafirs here that the 500 ulema tell Muslims not to say prayers for the dead man means that they condemn the murder and they think the killer was wrong?

Seriously, how stupid do you think the American non-Muslims are?

Kafir, its never too hard for me to prove your lies. I can see through morons like you. Here's what you actually said that I objected to:

"Why would 500 religious scholars pass a laudatory announcement for the Killer of Salman Taseer?"

Now when asked for the source, unsurprisingly you change your position and say:

"More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers for Governor Salmaan Taseer nor try to lead the prayers," the group said in a statement."

That sums you up. You are full of half truths, baseless information and outright lies. I dont think I should even bother arguing with you as I am tired of pointing out your lies. Then you wonder why I call you a shameless Hindu??

Another Link for YasserYousufi:

****
http://174.133.94.26/content/127778/thousands-march-karachi-support-blasphemy.html

Thousands march in Karachi to support blasphemy laws, Qadri
Karachi, Jan 9 (PTI)

Shouting anti-government slogans, thousands of people today marched here in Pakistan's financial capital to oppose any amendments in the controversial blasphemy laws and praised the man charged with killing Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer who dubbed it as ''black law''.

The rally was attended by Jamiat Ulema–e-Pakistan chief Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman and Jamaat-e-Islami chief Syed Munawwar Hasan.
The demonstrators centered around the M A Jinnah Road and the Mausoleum of Quaid-e-Azam in Saddar area here with people converging in the area on the call of the splinter of conservative religio-political parties who oppose any changes to the laws that make insulting Islam a capital offense.

Wearing green headbands and holding flags with the Quranic verses inscribed on them, hundreds of youngsters, some of them wielding sticks, shouted slogans against the Pakistani government and the United States.
Some even shouted slogans in favour of arrested police commando Mumtaz Hussain Qadri who shot dead Taseer last week.

Jamaat-ud-Dawah's chief Hafiz Saeed, who was scheduled to be at the rally, did not turn up. However, senior JuD leader Qari Ahsaan was present at the rally.

"Mumtaz Qadri is not a murderer, he is a hero," said one banner in Urdu. "We are ready to sacrifice our lives for the dignity of the Prophet Mohammad," read another.
Maulana Rehman said Governor Taseer "was responsible for his own murder" because he had criticised the law and warned the government against making amendments in the law.

"We will organise protest rallies from next week in every mohalla and city, the blasphemy law issue is not just the issue of Pakistani Muslims but of the entire Islamic Ummah," Rehman told the gathering.

He said that when no effort had been made to amend other laws like the ones dealing with corruption or the civil death sentence then why was an issue being made of the blasphemy law.

"This is the conspiracy of people who want to divide the Islamic world and our nation," he said.

JeI chief Hasan alleged that attempts were being made to amend the blasphemy law at the behest of Western forces. ....
*****

You consider the killing of Taseer a terrible tragedy but Hafiz Saeed and JUI Fazl ur Rahman do not. They consider the killer a Ghazi. Thousands came out for a march in support of Qadri while Sherry Rahman is in hiding because she has been declared a non-Muslim and your interior Minister is telling her that she should leave Pakistan for her life is now in danger.

YasserYousufi writes: "I do not believe 500 religous scholars praising Salman Taseer is accurate. Its probably from one of those quack sources you post from everyday."

I had provided this link before and I post it again:
********
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/garlands-for-killer-as-punjab-leader-is-buried-2177181.html
Scholars from a usually moderate group of Sunni Muslims that has opposed proposals to scrap the laws said no one should have sympathy for Mr Taseer.

"More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers for Governor Salmaan Taseer nor try to lead the prayers," the group said in a statement.
*****
You consider the independent a quack source?

Here is from your Pakistani Paper about rallies in support of the Killer Qadri:
***
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=24578&Cat=2&dt=1/8/2011

RAWALPINDI: Activists of thousands of Tehrik Khatam-e-Nabuwat and other religious organisations Friday took out rallies throughout the country in favour of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s assassin Malik Mumtaz Qadri.

In Rawalpindi, a large rally gathered at the residence of Qadri in the evening and chanted slogans in favour of the cop. Some enthusiasts lifted father of Qadri on shoulders as the crowd demanded early release of the killer, saying he has done so to save the sanctity of holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW). A big rally was also taken out in Karachi where religious leaders paid tributes to Qadri. The participants also held placards and chanted slogans in favour of him.

Religious scholars and Sialkot residents also took out a rally which marched through different roads in the city. Depalpur Bar Association members also took out a rally in favour of Malik Qadri. The lawyers marched through main roads and staged a sit-in on Kasur Road where they chanted slogans in favour of Qadri. ...
****

Yousufi wrties: "You post 1000's of anti muslim posts and then come back at me and call me a hater?"

I do not write anti muslim posts. I write anti Islam posts. Islam is a set of ideas that I despise and I consider those ideas to be dangerous for a country that gave me refuge. I escaped the hate that permeates Pakistan. Do you deny that in Pakistan young children are taught to hate hindus? Do you deny that the school books for young children denigrate hindus and their gods? That is the brainwashing you are trapped in and fortunately the one I worked myself out of.

Kafir you make up a lot of lies in your posts that have nothing to do with reality. The death of Salman Taseer is a terrible tragedy. He was killed by a religious fanatic like the ones who have killed Mohandas Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Yitzhak Rabin and Gabrielle Giffords. I do not believe 500 religous scholars praising Salman Taseer is accurate. Its probably from one of those quack sources you post from everyday. Grow out of your one dimensional world. How many people have to tell you that you sound like a jerk being obsessed with hate for muslims.

You are sounding way too precious regarding me calling out your Hindu identity. You post 1000's of anti muslim posts and then come back at me and call me a hater? look at yourself in the mirror little man! Unlike you, I dont hate all Hindus, I just call out those small brained and small willy Hindus who hide behind false identities.

Yasser, there are nuts in every society and in every culture. However, that does not explain the events in Muslim countries. Why are non-Muslims treated as second class humans in ALL Muslim countries? Why are there discriminatory laws against Kafirs in all muslim countries? Why would 500 religious scholars pass a laudatory announcement for the Killer of Salman Taseer? Why would Salman be pronounced as a Kafir before he is declared wajib ul qatl (deserving to be killed)? Why is Sherry Rahman being labeled as a non-Muslim now? Why is the label of non-Muslim such a heinous label in muslim countries?

You can deny all you want but it is now becoming obvious to all Kafirs around the world that your allah hates the Kafirs, that Islam teaches hate for the non-Muslims, and your Sharia embeds in it hatred for the non-Muslims.

Look at yourself. Who has taught you to hate the hindus as deeply as you do? You curse at the hindus every chance you get. "Shameless lousy hindus"? Why such hate, Yasser? Your schools teach that. How do you think millions of non-Muslim children in your country feel when they read such hateful opinions about them, their parents, their gods?

Kafir and all other professional haters,

The incident in Arizona proves that there are Christian nuts, Hindu nuts, Muslim nuts and Atheist nuts all around us. Doesn't necessarily mean that it makes a belief system evil which is your argument against islam. Its plain stupidity. none of your childish posts ever make sense. but you have your rights to spread hatred, so you go help yourself being a hatemonger!

Many of us who represent a dwindling liberal, secular strand in the media are fond of quoting Jinnah’s Aug 11, 1947 speech which remains as eloquent a declaration of secularism as I have read anywhere.
Posted by: AKafir | January 8, 2011 9:50 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jinnah though a secularist, was an egotist who could not stand the idea of playing second fiddle to Nehru. So he collaborated with the bigots the and paved the way for pakistan. He is the secularist who sold his proverbial soul to the proverbial devil.

Are you safe with your hate YasserYusufi for the "shameless lousy hindus"?

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\01\09\story_9-1-2011_pg1_1

KARACHI: After the assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, it has been reported that fatwas are being issued against Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Sherry Rehman, declaring her a non-Muslim and demanding death sentence for her.

Daily Times has learnt that the imam of Sultan Masjid has issued a fatwa and another has been published in a pamphlet and distributed by the Tanzeem-e-Islami (TI).
************************

What is the awful crime has the Member of Parliment Sherry Rahman to be declared a Kafir (non-Muslim) and a "wajb ul qatl"? Is there a bigger insult in Pakistan than to be declared a Kafir? Does that say anything about the status of the 2 to 3% of non-Muslim Pakistanis (about 5 million people) in your country?

All poor Sherry did is ask for the blasphemy law to be reviewed!! Killing Salman was not enough. Will Parvaiz Hoodbhoy be next? He is definitely a Kafir if ever there was one ... right?

http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/08/blaming-the-victim.html
****
Much is being made of the fact that a fanatic like Qadri could be assigned to a VIP security team. But in today`s Pakistan, this is the norm, not the exception. Our state schools as well as our madressahs have become breeding grounds for extremism. These ideas are then amplified across much of our media. This kind of constant brainwashing makes it hard for people to think independently and rationally.
Successive governments, both civilian and military, have shut their eyes to what is being taught at our educational institutions. Ditto for the sermons in many mosques that are in reality little more than incitement to violence. Ditto again for the retrogressive, anti-West propaganda that passes for informed debate on many of our private TV channels.
****
Are you capable of rationality stewing in your hate of the hindus, Yasser?

http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/01/analysing-pakistan%E2%80%99s-dna.html

One central truth most of us are unwilling to face is that much of the increasing extremism we see around us is deeply embedded in Pakistan’s DNA. When a country is created in the name of a faith, then inevitably, that faith will come to dominate modes of thought and behaviour.
Many of us who represent a dwindling liberal, secular strand in the media are fond of quoting Jinnah’s Aug 11, 1947 speech which remains as eloquent a declaration of secularism as I have read anywhere. But talk to clerics or students today, and they will look at you in disbelief and even anger if you impute secularism to the founder of Pakistan. In their view, he created Pakistan in the name of Islam, and not for the Muslims of the subcontinent. This is too nuanced an argument for most people who prefer to see things only in black and white.
******

In a hate saturated Islamic country, are you safe Yasser?

6 people dead so far including a nine year old girl and a US judge in Arizona. The apparent target Democrat Congresswomen had a bullet go through her head. However, the shooter is not a muslim, but a white, partybagging christian nut, so he is not a terrorist, so you are safe america.

"Half the world cannot go to war"

Dude, history shows that half the world did go to war twice in the Twentieth Century. Many Muslims hate Christians, Jews, Atheists, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists as "infidels". Unless they let go of their hatred, the sad fact is that there is a very real chance that half the world will go to war. Saudi Arabia and Iran finance terrorists world wide.

The moderate Muslims need to reclaim their mosques and their God from their haters rather than tolerating them and even giving them aid, succor, and cover. Just like the Christians in Post Bellum South used to give the KKK terrorists aid and cover the Muslims of today do it for their terrorists. They need to redeem themselves and their religion, just like the Post Bellum Christians in the American South had to do.

And now to Iran.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/01/07/Christians-arrested-in-Iran/UPI-72361294417421/

Amid widespread outrage over Christian persecution, Iranian authorities said they arrested dozens of Christians who had converted from Islam.

Tehran Gov. Morteza Tamadon said Iranian Christians were arrested during the Christmas holiday for converting from Islam or trying to convert others to Christianity.

"Just like the Taliban, who have inserted themselves into Islam like a parasite, (evangelicals) have crafted a movement in the name of Christianity," he was quoted by Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying.

****************

If they do not recant and be a witness against other christians, they will be put to death as apostates. That is Islam ... Shia or Sunni.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7789208-afghan-christian-may-die-for-apostasy-charges

Afghan Christian May Die for Apostasy Charges
Kabul : Afghanistan | Jan 04, 2011
By Success Kanayo Uchime

According to a report by the Regional Manager for the Middle East International Christian Concern (ICC) (www.persecution.org) Aidan Clay he noted Assadullah, a convert from Islam to Christianity was arrested on October 21 in Mazar-e-Sharif for giving a Bible to a man who later reported him to local authorities.

He said that Assadullah, is currently in a prison in Mazar-e-Sharif, in northern Afghanistan adding that at a court hearing on December 28, Assadullah was told to recant Christianity and return to Islam.

Quoting Assadullah, Clay said he is quite certain the court officials will give him the death penalty. At his last court appearance, the judge gave him one final week to renounce his faith otherwise he would be hanged or killed for his faith.

“Shoaib stated he has given his life completely into the hands of Jesus. He said he was so happy for the spiritual fight. An ICC source in Mazar-e-Sharif was told by a court official today that Assadullah will be summoned to court on January 4 at 10:00 a.m. local time.”

Clay said Shoaib Assadullah may be given a death sentence as early as tomorrow if the international community does not act quickly. If Assadullah is executed, his death will signify the failure of the United States and her allies to liberate Afghanistan from the radical ideals of the Taliban after investing millions of dollars to reform the country’s judicial system.

“We urge the international community to demand the immediate release of Assadullah and to hold Afghanistan accountable to its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he stated.

He said Afghanistan is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and that according to article 18, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

**************************

Akbar will you be telling the Afghan Judge that he misunderstands Islam? Will you? Have you?

Can the message be any clearer:

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/CultureAndMedia/Italy-Protection-urged-for-journalist-after-suspected-radical-Muslim-gunman-targets-his-car_311508720165.html

Italy: Protection urged for journalist after suspected radical Muslim gunman targets his car

Potenza, 7 Jan. (AKI) - A director of Italian public broadcaster RAI has urged the government to protect to one of its journalists after a suspected radical Muslim opened fire on his car in southern Italy. Nello Rega was uninjured in the attack as he drove home late on Thursday. Rega wrote a book on Islam's uneasy relationship Christianity and has received several threats from alleged Muslim extremists over the past two years.

"Last night's attack should leave people in no doubt. Rega could have been killed. Why is he not adequately protected?" said Antonio Bagnardi, director of RAI Televideo, where Bagnardi works.

"Isn't it enough that he has beeen intimidated for months on end and now is a victim of attempted murder," Bagnardi added, calling on Italy's interior minister Roberto Maroni to intervene.

A single shot was fired at Rega's car from a vehicle that drew up alongside as he drove along a state highway near the city of Potenza in Italy's Basilicata region, damaging Rega's rear window. He reported the attack to police, who were examining his car as part of their investigation.

Since his book 'Different and Divided - a Diary of Coexistence with Islam' Rega has received threats in the Italian capital, Rome, and in Potenza including an envelope mailed to him with bullets inside.

Bagnardi urged media not to under-report or ignore such incidents.
***************************

Submit to Islam or we will kill you!! Who allowed and is allowing these killers into the countries of the Kafirs? Who wrote the immigration laws that allows wholesale importing of people who wish to destroy the freedoms of the Kafirs?

Will the moderate Muslims Akbar, Eboo, and others step up and actually start telling the truth about Islam and it absolute hate for the Kafirs, its continuous history of oppressing and subjugating the non-Muslims where ever muslims have found themselves in significant numbers?

People like Akbar, Eboo, and other so called "moderates" are in love with their Islam and are psychologically incapable of seeing the truth about Islam. They will paint (what they truly believe) Muhammad as kind and peaceful as Jesus. They are fully aware that they cannot address the religious fanatics in the Muslim countries without being put on death lists. 500 muslim scholars have praised the killer of the Governor of Panjab. The law minister of Panjab is justifying the murder because the Governor was not a religious man.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Lahore/07-Jan-2011/Salman-Taseer-was-a-nonreligious-man-Rana-Sanaullah

These "moderates" will lecture the Kafirs but not a peep to those who are actually doing the killing in their countries. Akbar knows that he cannot write an open letter to any one of the 500 Muslim Scholars in Pakistan telling them in straight forward manner that the blasphemy law of Pakistan is insanity. If he does that, he risks getting himself or a member of his family killed.

The poor christian woman is already on death row but she is not being killed fast enough for the warriors of Islma. Now they are warning of a suicide bomber to take her out.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_blasphemous-asia-bibi-facing-suicide-attack-threat-in-pakistan_1491054

The American Non-Muslims really do need to become more aware of the insidious role these so called "moderate" Muslims play while they are supporting the Muslim organisations like CAIR, ISNA (mouthpieces of Muslim Brotherhood and supporters of Hamas) and ICNA (front of Jamaat Islami).

Let Akbar and other moderated Muslims address any one of the 500 Muslim Scholars in an open letter in a Pakistani Newspaper (the liberal paper Daily Times of Pakistan was Salman Taseer's paper, and would be more than happy to publish Akbars views and opinions). The we can see how clear and straight forward he really can be. Any waffling or nuanced diplomatic language will be obvious and exactly what Akbar thinks of the Kafirs will be for all to read. So go ahead Akbar write an honest opinion in a paper that has been partial to you in the past.

Ahuman1

You wrote, "In today’s civilized world violence cannot be justified for any reason even for past history or mistakes."

Whether or not it can be "justified" seems rather beside the point, doesn't it, when it is being used all of the time, all over the place?

As far as "today's civilized world", just how deep do you think the veneer of "civilization" goes?

Just because man has come up with a lot of technological wonders, does not mean that man's nature has changed and if one takes an honest look around, reality has a way of being seen.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I am really amazed why Muslims have their heads in the sand. Don’t they realize every place in the world where there is religious conflict, violence and killings Muslims are involved? Look at Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya (Russia), Northwest China (Uighurs), Philippines, Bali (Indonesia), Somalia……

Throughout the human civilization there have been differences based on faith, wealth, name, fame, etc. There is no other way to resolve the differences except through dialogue. Only way Muslims know is through violent Jihad. In today’s civilized world violence cannot be justified for any reason even for past history or mistakes. Sooner Muslims realize this fact the better it is for them otherwise Islam is doomed.

Ahuman1

Well, Akbar Ahmed, The Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University in Washington. Former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain.

It is easy to write this kind of article and print it in the west. But which newspapers in Pakistan will publish these thoughts? Or in Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Or tunisia? Moslems don't want to hear any criticism of Islam, and knowing that Moslems are killing Christians is an insult to Islam. Egypt is now saying that the murders of Christians in Egypt is not caused by Moslems, who were filmed murdering the Christians, but by Israeli agents.

As long as these lies and murders continue in Islamic countries, the more insulted Islam becomes.

I used to not understand how the crusades began. Now, after Moslems are killing Christians worldwide, burning churches and beheading Christian martyrs, now I understand.

Perhaps we do need to go to war with Islam after all, in a new Crusades. We don't need to win- simply to make the murdering Moslems stop killing innocent people of other faiths. If there was a penalty to Moslems for killing Christians, it would stop. And very quickly, too.

The problem is much larger than MR. Ahmed describes, it spans the entire muslim world and it is hatred of people not Muslim. While Mr. Ahmed studied in missionary schools and so did many others in Pakistan (I did too). We may have had respect for the nuns and priests who thought us (they were European) because they were our teachers. We always respect teachers (cultural) but we did not extend that respect to the local Christians of our country. The Europeans are all gone and dead now. The local Christians however were considered black and dirty and commonly known as "churas", a word I think worse than the "N" word in the US. The Christians were and are made to do menial jobs cleaning and extreme labor (brick kilns, field work etc.). It is also worth mentioning that the local Christians did NOT receive a "privileged" education in those English Medium schools like J&M and St. Anthony's in Lahore or St. Patrick's in Karachi, or any where else in Murree etc.
The problem is still there for Christians, Hindus etc. They are considered dirty and when killed or eliminated in muslim countries it is not a big deal. Their (Christians, Hindus etc.) women are raped and there is no justice for them.

Muslims who have immigrated and left Pakistan love to talk about the respect they had for Christians. It's not entirely true. They need to do more and speak up more and really do something to change things back there not writing worthless articles for WAPO.

Yasseryousufi1, says in his post -
"Mr. Ahmed,

Like you I too studied at a missionary school (one of the oldest in the country) in Pakistan. As a Pakistani I can only speak for my country. Christians and other minorities in Pakistan have all the constitutional guarantees for their safe-keep that the muslims have. I will admit that there have been instances of violence against Christians in Pakistan which are terrible but they are negligible in size as compared to the whole sale killings, Church Burnings, Death threats to missionaries that occur regularly in our neighboring India which the bleeding heart hindus on this blog gloss over. "

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There is no need for anyone to gloss over anything. Mr. Taqiyah, at long lost you have made your appearance on the blog, with your perfunctory condemnation and perfunctory potshot at India. You only disappointed us here with your delayed protestations. Which in of itself speaks volumes. That aside, coming to your potshots, please go back to the census figures, 1940, 1950 & 2010 for your beloved dar-ul-islam. See the steady erosion of the minority population in your beloved dar-ul-islam, then retrospect. Then tell us, if you have a leg to stand on. Stop practicing Taquiyah with us, we are all too aware of it.

Mr. Akbar and his loyal friends calmly changes the facts - It is muslims who are doing the killing in these countries.

As for the jibe about Hindus, there is an effort ( at least ) to get to know the facts, which in these predominantly muslim countries is absent.

Mr. Ahmed,

Like you I too studied at a missionary school (one of the oldest in the country) in Pakistan. As a Pakistani I can only speak for my country. Christians and other minorities in Pakistan have all the constitutional guarantees for their safe-keep that the muslims have. I will admit that there have been instances of violence against Christians in Pakistan which are terrible but they are negligible in size as compared to the whole sale killings, Church Burnings, Death threats to missionaries that occur regularly in our neighboring India which the bleeding heart hindus on this blog gloss over.

I mourn the loss of Salman Taseer like most of my countrymen. This decade long war on terror of which Pakistan is the central ally of US and West, is shredding our society apart. Its making the religous zealots more powerful and expressive than they ever were. The rage of extra judicial murders through drone attacks that kill dozens of people in one go along with their women, children and elderly is seeping into the society. But still there are enough Pakistanis who are fighting back against this wave of intolerance. Salman Taseer's rag to riches story and his bravery in standing upright in face of such clear opposition will Inshallah be an inspiration to this movement.

By talking about half the world at war, and focusing on Christians and Muslims, this article understates the scope of the problem.

Christians in America
Christians in Europe
Hindus in India
Bhudists and Christians in southeast Asia
Christians and Animists in Africa
Athiests in Russia and China
Jews in Israel
Sorry if I left out any group Muslims are fighting.
Either everyone is picking on Muslims, or Muslims are creating problems worldwide.
Anyone not Muslim in the Middle East

Kingofkings1

As long as Islam could live in isolation from the rest of the world, what when on in Islam stayed in Islam.

Now, the world is different.

Islam must get along with the notion that there are "others" in the world, or it will disappear.

Secular,
"are you really suggesting that blasphemy should be a crime?"
No. I forgot to type the word "not".

It is not only Pakistan.

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Religion/Egypt-Flurry-of-threats-against-Copts-posted-on-Islamic-sites_311499505861.html

Egypt: Flurry of threats against Copts posted on Islamic sites

Cairo, 5 Jan. (AKI) - Numerous threats to Egypt's Copts have been posted on fundamentalist Muslim websites ahead of the Coptic Christian Church's Christmas and in the wake of the New Year's Eve attack in Alexandria, which killed 23 people.

A recent message posted on the al-Shumukh website and others considered close to Al-Qaeda addressed themselves directly to Coptic pope Shenuda III who was warned of "imminent new strikes" against Egyptian Copts.

One message on a forum promised that "we will strike you all in a new attack. We have warned you as Allah is my witness."

A missive posted on website Mujahideen simply warned: "There will be new attacks very soon."

The Coptic church of Saint Mary and Saint Mark in the Paris suburb of Chatenay-Malabry had reportedly been threatened. Copts in Germany have also asked for protection after receiving similar threats.

The Austrian interior ministry on Monday announced that that country's Copt community was put under protection after the discovery of a list of 150 Copts targeted for attack. England has also implemented security measures.

Barnaba El Soryani, who is a religious leader for the Copt population in the northern city of Turin, in an interview with Adnkronos International said he has "asked for protection by the Italian police during a prayers" that will take place on 6 January, the day that marks Christmas Eve on the Coptic calendar.

clearthinking writes:"He just spoke against blasphemy laws."

In Islam speaking against blasphemy is blasphemous. Taseer was declared a Kafir by the Ulema. So they voided his marriage. For the Islamic Scholars, those attending Taseer's funeral are all in need of "re-education" and punishment.

"Thomas Paul Moses Baum" writes:
"It may not be "half of the world" but didn't islam, thru Mohammed, declare war on the world a long time ago?"

Correct.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0033

It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
"Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: 'Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'"

The victim did not even commit blasphemy, which should be a capital crime anyway. He just spoke against blasphemy laws.

Where are the usual apologists for the Islam as the religion o' peace?

Posted by: clearthinking1
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearthinking1, are you really suggesting that blasphemy should be a crime? I beg to differ with you on that. That is insane. Therefore, that wretched failed state is insane too.

THE BAD NEWS: Christianity & Islam are the 2 religions always involved in religious violence on one side or both. Their supremacist beliefs bring out the worst in everyone as well. Not an impressive record of spiritual development for these religions.

THE GOOD NEWS: The majority of the world is not Christian or Muslim. Most are Hindu, Buddhists, Sikh, Jain, Confucianist, Taoist, Atheist, etc. These other "religions" do not promote religiously motivated violence.

Islam is impressive for a "religion" in terms of the violence and hatred. Just look at Pakistan today and the so-called moderate clerics celebrating the murder of an innocent. The killer is showered with rose petals, and the victim is blamed. The victim did not even commit blasphemy, which should be a capital crime anyway. He just spoke against blasphemy laws.

Where are the usual apologists for the Islam as the religion o' peace?

Akbar Ahmed

The title of your post: "Half of the world cannot go to war"

It may not be "half of the world" but didn't islam, thru Mohammed, declare war on the world a long time ago?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The silence of self proclaimed apostles of inter-faith harmony is deafening on this blog. Such as the most righteous soldier of the religion of peace Mr. Yousufi, the angel of inanities of inter-faith harmony Ms. Jihadist, the always indignant KoK1, Bloggersville, et al are silent about the assassination of half-christian-half-muslim governor of (failed state of) Pakistani-Punjab. There are not even the predictable perfunctory condemnation of the assassination even. With of course the usual claptrap action one misguided fanatice... blah blah blah. Actually this was not a misguided fanatic but probably a mentally handicapped miserable wretch egged on by a deluge of so called scholars. This leads me to to one conclusion, which is that the infamous coterie above most likely approve the incident. I say shame on them.

Akbar you are really needed in Pakistan. Please return to your homeland immediately and help restore sanity and moderation:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/garlands-for-killer-as-punjab-leader-is-buried-2177181.html

Garlands for killer as Punjab leader is buried
....
When Mumtaz Qadri, the 26-year-old police commando accused of killing Mr Taseer, appeared for an initial court hearing, some in the crowd threw rose petals, patted him on the back and even handed him a flower garland.

The accused, who reportedly shouted "God is Great" at the hearing, is due to be taken to an anti-terrorism court later today.

Scholars from a usually moderate group of Sunni Muslims that has opposed proposals to scrap the laws said no one should have sympathy for Mr Taseer.

"More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers for Governor Salmaan Taseer nor try to lead the prayers," the group said in a statement.

"Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy."

Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the country's main Islamist political parties, agreed that the assassination at Islamabad's Kohsar Market was justified.

While you are lying to the Kafirs in USA, those who murdered the secular Muslim Salman Taseer after first declaring him a Kafir and hence "wajib ul qtal" (deserving to be killed) are protecting the killer:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\01\06\story_6-1-2011_pg7_14

Religious parties unite to protect Qadri

By Zeeshan Javaid

ISLAMABAD: Religious parties on Wednesday seemed united in protecting Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassin Malik Mumtaz Qadri.

Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a Bralevi sect party, called a meeting for tomorrow (Friday), likely to be held in Rawalpindi to discuss the fallout of the assassination of the Punjab governor.

Senior SIC member Haji Hanif Tayeb told Daily Times by phone that Sahibzada Fazal Karim would chair the meeting and then it would be decided whether to support Qadri or otherwise. The Tahafuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz, a forum of Bralevi school of thought, also seemed determined to protect Qadri. Maulana Raghib Naeemi told Daily Times that anarchy would increase in society if some one tried to amend the blasphemy law. “It is a principled decision of the Mahaz to support Qadri,” Naeemi categorically stated. Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer, Syed Munawar Hassan, justified Qadri’s act, saying Salmaan Taseer himself had to be blamed for his fate.

In a press statement, he said Taseer’s views on the blasphemy law provoked Qadri into killing him. Badshahi Masjid Khateeb Maulana Abul Khabir Azad asked the government not to amend the blasphemy law, as it would hurt the sentiments of 180 million people of Pakistan.

Replying to a question, he denied that he refused to lead Taseer’s funeral prayers saying he was busy and could not spare time.
***

The miniscule secular press is saying "religious parties" meaning the religious muslims of Pakistan.

And then another secular mourner writes:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\01\06\story_6-1-2011_pg3_2

I do not mourn Salmaan Taseer alone but I also mourn those who have been killed before him on the perilous path of speaking their mind, and those who will be killed in the future on this journey. Ayesha Siddiqa, Kamran Shafi, Nadeem Farooq Paracha, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Sherry Rehman and so many others are living on borrowed time. It is not a matter of if but when an indoctrinated bigot let loose by the deep state will get to them or, for that matter, any of us who decline to follow the rotten creed that it has been peddling for decades.
***

Peddling for decades!!! You were an Ambassador in those decades. You were in the thick of the Pakistani Establishment in those Decades. Akbar did you ever ever ever write a single column or a word criticising that rotten creed? Go ahead Akbar, Show the Kafirs how principled ad brave you were and how you spoke up against the religious nuts of Pakistan that have been ethinically cleansing the hindus in Kashmir since 1980.
And now you suddenly are finding your voice?

Akbar,

In your country of Pakistan, they killed the Governor of Panjab. Why? In his words:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=24207&Cat=2&dt=1/6/2011

On November 29, Salman Taseer while talking to media said that decrees were being issued against him for helping a poor, illiterate and helpless Christian woman. He said that Islam preaches harmony and peace.

Who was issuing the decrees against him?
******
On the same day Almi Tanzeem Ahle Sunnat issued a decree that Salman Taseer termed blasphemy law as a black law therefore he no more remains a Muslim. They urged the chief justice of Pakistan to take notice and remove Taseer from his slot. Pir Afzal Qadri threatened that there were many Ghazi Elim Din Shaheeds, the man who killed a Hindu writer for blasphemy, therefore the rulers should realise the sentiments of the nation. He even said that neither prime minister nor president has any power to pardon Aasia Bibi.

On the same 23rd November Majlis-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat announced that one who will pardon a blasphemer will also no more remain a Muslim. The Governor House received threats of bomb blast and its security was beefed-up.
On November 24 Tahafuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz organised protests throughout the country against the act of Salman Taseer to save Aasia Bibi. Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool’s central leader Qari Sheikh Yaqoob demanded death punishment for Salman Taseer along with Aasia Bibi. National Peace Committee for Interfaith Harmony’s Shafique Raza Qadri announced that one who helps a blasphemer is also equally responsible.

Many Ulema in Lahore including Mufti Mustafa Ashraf Rizvi, Maulana Ghulam Hussain Qadri, Maulana Saleemullah Khan, Mufti Naeem Akhter Qadri, Mufti Asif Raza Qadri, Qari Muzafar Hussain Kharal, Mufti Safdar Ali Kazmi, Mufti Muhammad Ali Qadri, Mufti Muhammad Khan and Allama Mufti Altaf Hussain issued a decree that Taseer remains no more a Muslim for helping Aasia Bibi and terming blasphemy law, a black law. The decree also said that the marriage contract of Salman Taseer has also become void.
***************
It was your learned religious Scholars (Ulema) who declared him a Kafir first and called for his murder just as they had killed a "shameless lousy hindu"(YasserYousufi's words) earlier. Once a Kafir his marriage to a muslim was voided.

Why don't you go lecture to the Ulema in your Country? Why don't you go to Pakistan and teach them your "interfaith dialog" there? See you if you can survive there more than Taseer could. Taseer's mother was a christian, a british lady.

You are a hypocrite who lies to the Kafirs.

People who want war want a swift passage to nothingness. Problem is that want to take us with them.

Akbar Ahmed

You wrote, "Christians and Muslims together form half the world's population, and as a Muslim educated in Pakistan by Christians, it breaks my heart to see these two great faiths in conflict."

It may "break your heart" but does it surprize you?

You then wrote, "The Qur'an tells us, "the most similar to you will be the Christians." Jesus is such an incredibly important and central figure in Islam that its heartbreaking for me to see that these two faiths are on an roller coaster with no end in sight."

The Qur'an might say, "the most similar to you will be the Christians", by this do you think that this means Islam and Christianity are similiar?

Christianity and Islam are world's apart, one claims that God became One of us and the other claims that god finds it disgusting to even think about becoming one of us.

People of all religious persuasions and of no religious persuasion at all will come to realize that God looks at the person, not the "label".

If God became One of us, the god of islam is a liar.

If God did not become One of us then Christianity simply does not exist.

You also wrote, "This is not a time for merely interfaith goodwill."

The thing is maybe "interfaith goodwill" is the only thing that there is time for.

It should be obvious to anyone that the "core belief" of both Christianity and Islam are at total odds to each other (God becoming One of us and god not becoming one of us and being disgusted with even the thought of it) but does that mean that one has to kill or treat with utter disdain the other?

God gave us free will and to abuse anyone's free will by trying to "cram" any belief or non-belief in something "bigger" than us would most definitely be against God's wishes.

God's Plan which God has had since before creation will come to Fruition and God's Plan is, ultimately, for ALL to be in God's Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr Akbar talks in lots of inanities about what is said in koran, about christians, blah, blah, blah. The very quotes that he quotes are quite grotesque of excluding everyone else. That being said any rabble rouser muslim can quote hundred negative quotes out of koran for every nice he can quote. So appealing to koran is a lost case. Besides why do all these so called moderates lecture the west about all the calamities. If they really want to affect course of history they should be writing these kind of article in Al Ahram, or Dawn and whatever other news outlets and TV stations such as Memri-TV etc. No they won't because they are bunch of spineless wonders. They know very well an article of this kind is a sure way for them to be handed their heads by the more bigoted muslims. Then AA says, "They do not realize that if a woman is condemned in Pakistan it will have an affect on Muslim women in America. And if a pastor in Florida threatens to burn the Qur'an, Muslims around the world are affected. Governmental leaders must understand the cause and effect of these issues."

The problem with above nonsense is that not a single muslim woman in America is affected, except that they may have to hang their heads in utter shame - deservedly so. Coming to the latter, again not a single muslim need be affected by a pastor burning anything in the US. It is all of those mulims making. Whatever a fool does is what fool does, if you react to it. That is your willful choice much like the fools choice. However, the fools doings were by and large victimless foolery and attention grabbing exercise. Where as what ensued in all the Dar-ul-islams wasn't mere foolery and the most of the victims are muslims at that. The stupid victims do not even want to acknowledge that, their misery is of their own making.

I am sick and tired of these moderates hectoring us about the beauty of Islam and the inter-faith harmony crap. They know that they need to reach their ilk in the dar-ul-islams of this world.

First the West needs to correct the misunderstanding that America in anyway represents Christianity or any other religion, we are a secular nation. Deeds of the American Government, whether good or evil have nothing at all to do with Christians in the Middle East or Jews either for that matter. Whatever the hidden reasons, if there are any, behind Americans actions, they are not to spread Christianity.

Second: America and Europe need to convince the world that people here really can say anything they want as far as the government is concerned with very few exceptions. Reacting with violence against Westerners because some nut job is burning Qurans is simply insane if you understand the West. Neither the Government or the people can stop these nut jobs, because we that the best ideas win in the end when free debate is allowed.

Third killing people for converting from or too Islam is just insane. Islam is a beautiful, it does not need to use force to gain its convert, or to retain the unfaithful. Attempting to use force in these matters discredits the religion using the force.

Note you are more free to practice you own favorite form of Islam in the USA than most Islamic Countries, no government officials select the Imams in the USA.

Fourth: If it comes down to all out war,it will be Christian World, and India, and likely most of the Far East against the more conservative Islamic Nations, or in others a very swift end for those countries. It will be more likely 6.5 billion to 800 million at best, and sadly the Islamic people will suffer when there was no threat to their religion at all.

Well, sometimes it's hard to see the elephant in the room.

If the muslim and christian world was able to duel it out in the middle ages and come up with a solution that functioned reasonably well for a few hundred years, it's possible the same could be done now. The problem is we didn't have crude bombs, smart bombs, and nuclear bombs in the middle ages.