The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque

Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke "justice," the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the "justice of our causes, particularly Palestine"; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: "Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who's understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?" (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Of course, that Osama bin Laden—slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest—exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero—that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden—also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.

The very name of the initiative itself, "Cordoba," offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque "Cordoba" is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies "healing"—a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative's mission statement certainly suggests as much:

Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.

Oddly enough, the so-called "tolerant" era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of 'Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)—well over a thousand years ago. "Eight hundred years ago," i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids—ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda—were ravaging Cordoba, where "Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death."

A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?

At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam's history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka'ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam's holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third holiest site, was built atop Solomon's temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the "Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury" if there was "any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims," for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)

Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, "Cordoba House," it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word "house" suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean "region," and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., "infidel region of war." Thus, to Muslim ears, while "Cordoba" offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala' wa al-Bara', for instance).

Words aside, even the mosque's scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to "kill and be killed"—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque's planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A "new beginning," indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America.

Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly "Western" region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor—a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.

Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches—that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony—are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.

Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.

Islam and the Dogs

A nice illustration of Islam's dogs problem...

---

A dog, say named 'Fido', was found dead in the backyard alley of one of my neighbor’s house.

The poor dog had been lying there dead for over a couple of days, its blotted body now emitting a horrible stench. These rotting fumes gave one's nostrils an unbearable smell and would surely vomit on a couple of occasions.

So, to ensure what this death-smell actually was, I strolled out to the alley to investigate, when I saw Ashfaq (my next door neighbor) with his family discussing something between them. There was a furious argument over the dead dog in the family led to haggling, but Ashfaq and his family simply refused to touch the dead dog’s body to clean up the stench.

“It is paleet (dirty) in Islam to touch,” explained Ashfaq to his wife. “Call the Hindu bhangees (sewerage workers). They'll pick him up.”

“They cost too much these days,” said Kashif, our adjacent neighbor, who by now also joined the fiasco.

“This was my dog, by the way,” said Kashif.

“Well, then will you pick him up?” said Ashfaq.

“I can’t. I am a Muslim like you, remember?” said Kashif

“Then why did you keep a dog in the first place?” I replied.

“I didn’t know it is forbidden to keep dogs in Islam. I only got to know about a week ago. The maulana gave a fatwa for the stray dogs roaming the streets over here. I’ve been repenting ever since then...” exclaimed Kashif.

“So you killed the poor dog then?” I asked.

“No, I just let it go. I just threw a few stones at it, so that Fido would run away,” said Kashif.

"You mean, you stoned him to death?” I asked Kashif.

“No, no sir, I don’t think so,” retorted Kashif.

Another neighbor, Kamran, joined the conversation: “Isn’t that your dog, Kashif sahib?”

“Yes. It was, until last week,” said Kashif, with a frowning gesture.

“How did he die?” asked Kamran.

“Who cares how the dog died!” said Ashfaq, by now him being very much agitated. “It’s a paleet animal and it deserves to die!”

“But it is one of Allah’s many wonderful creatures,” I said.

“Keeping dogs is forbidden in Islam. Period!” Ashfaq announced rudely.

“How can you be so sure?” asked Kamran.

“Are you questioning Allah?” said Ashfaq.

“Are you Allah?” I replied in a tit for tat tone.

“No! Of-course not. Astraffullah!" said Ashfaq.

“Well, kindly answer this question then,” I replied.

“I read it somewhere in a book,” said Ashfaq.

“You mean The Holy book? The Noble Koran?" I asked him.

“No, it was tasfeer in some book by a famous aalim-e-deen (Islamic scholar),” replied Ashfaq.

“And, so you believed this aalim Ashfaq?” I exclaimed.

“It’s also a hadith of Rasool-e-pak SAW,” added Kamran.

“But there are thousands of ahadith. Not all are correct. How do you know this one is correct?” I asked.

“I just know it sahib...! Now please help me get this paleet animal off my property. Some one do call a bhangee!” said Ashfaq in an annoyed manner.

“Paleet Hindu bhangee, you mean,” I sarcastically interrupted him!

“Us Muslims cannot touch dogs, okay?” said Ashfaq.

“My clothes will get Na Pak (Un-Holy). Why don’t you get the District Government people do this work?” asked Kashif.

Meanwhile, Kamran, who was listening to the scintillating theological dialogue between Ashfaq and Kashif, decided to pitch in: “You know, brothers, I think either the CIA or Blackwater agents killed your dog,” he sounded out seriously.

“What?” I reacted. “Why the hell would ‘they’ kill this poor ol’ dog?”

“Well, you see, I was trying to convert him, and…,” said Kashif

“Convert a dog?”

“Yes. I was trying to convert him into becoming a rooster,” Kashif explained.

“Wonderful!” exclaimed Ashfaq! “What a superb thought, this neighborhood certainly needs a rooster who can wake us (great Muslims) up for worship every morning.”

“Why not just get one, instead of getting a poor dog to turn into a rooster?” I snickered.

“Ah! Brother Jamshed... There is more sawab (good deeds) in converting paleet things and people,” said Ashfaq nostalgically.

“But why can’t a dog be a dog and a rooster a rooster? Why does a dog have to be converted into a rooster just because you don’t like dogs? Have you ever asked a rooster to turn into a dog?” I irritatingly questioned Ashfaq.

“Allah forbids! What are you saying? That rooster would become an apostate. We would have to kill it then,” reacted Kashif.

“But we already kill roosters. We love their meat, don’t we fellas?” I said jokingly.

“Yes, but a rooster eaten by a real Muslim actually goes to heaven,” said Ashfaq.

“Really? Who told you that now? The famous aalim probably, you mean!” I interrupted.

“No, actually my grandmother did, Allah bless her soul,” said Ashfaq.

All the while, Kashif was deep in thought, scratching his head: “Ashfaq bhai, had I been able to convert Fido into a rooster, would we have been able to eat it too?”

“Of course, Kashif. We certainly can eat roosters. It is Halal in Islam,” said Ashfaq.

“But, Ashfaq bhai, he would still be looking like a dog, if you know what I mean?” I intently blurted to them.

“Not if he was properly dressed,” said Ashfaq.

“Properly dressed too?” said Kamran.

“Of course,” replied Ashfaq. “Cannot let a converted dog run around naked you know. Nudity is forbidden in Islam!”

“But roosters run around naked too!” I said to them.

“Yes! But whereas, one can see everything on a naked dog and one cannot see on a rooster. They’re born covered with feathers,” explained Ashfaq.

OH! I SEE……… Hmmmm….! I frowned sheepishly.

“But you were born naked! Did your mother throw stones at you?” I asked, losing my temperament somewhat by now.

“What do you know, Ashfaq sahib? You even wear western clothes, you don’t have an Islamic beard and, your wife and daughters don’t even adorn the hijab?” I said.

A pin drop silence hummed between us. By now they were all thinking what to say to my question.

“Well that’s because, I don’t want to turn into a rooster and ask my wife and daughters to become hens! I’d rather remain human” -- I retaliated to them.

“You see, brother Jamshed, there lies your problem. Wanting to become human before a Muslim,” said Ashfaq.

“Oh, but I thought it meant the same thing. Doesn’t being a good Muslim amount to being a good human too?” I replied.

“Oye, hoye! What have all those Western books that you read done to you, brother Jamshed? Here, read this instead (he handed me the Koran). Get to know your Islamic roots dear,” said Ashfaq.

“What’s this?” I asked him.

“Is it your grandmother’s recipe for a mouth-smacking chicken burger? And what has a burger to do with my roots? And anyway, isn’t it a western dish too?” I jotted him.

“Ah! That is all what Western propaganda has made you believe in. Burgers were originally created by Muslims some 1400 ago,” Ashfaq said in a smiling manner.

“And who told you that? Mr. Zaid Hamid?” I asked.

“Well, I should know. I have Arab blood in my veins as I am a good Muslim,” said Ashfaq.

“Nonsense! You are clearly of subcontinental stock, like every Pakistani here,” I replied.

Ashfaq smugly shook his head: “My ancestors were Arabs, my friend Jamshed sahib. We used to raise roosters in south Yemen”.

“But, of course, it must be your ancestors and not mine,” I sighed my mind to him.

Enters Kashif: “But, brothers, what about my poor dog Fido?”

Ashfaq glared at him menacingly.

“I mean the dirty, filthy, paleet, forbidden creature from hell!” Kashif checked himself. “So what should we do with the dog now?”

“Well, if you say you were trying to convert Fido then I guess the Hindu Indians, Israeli Jews or Christian Americans killed him,” said Ashfaq.

Kashif started sobbing quietly: “My poor rooster is dead now!”

“Rooster?” I asked in a baffled tone.

“Don’t cry,” said Ashfaq. “He died for a good cause and Allah will grant him Jannat.”

“But you used to throw stones at him, Kashif,” said Kamran?

“Yes, but only when I caught him fornicating in public,” replied Kashif.

“But where else would a dog fornicate? In your drawing room?” I asked Kashif.

“Well, as long as Fido doesn’t do it in public,” said Ashfaq.

“But roosters fornicate in public too!” said Kamran.

“Yes, but they are properly dressed. And are male,” Ashfaq replied.

“What farce! It’s wrong if a dog fornicates in public, but its okay to stone him in public?” I said.

“It’s celestial law!” Ashfaq announced. May Allah grant him paradise.

“Whose law, your spaced-out grandmother’s?” I asked sarcastically.

“Hold your tongue, Jamshed sahib. Or you too will end up like that dog. I can’t have more dogs roaming around naked and fornicating in this neighborhood,” Ashfaq said in a harsh tone.

Suddenly there was a 16.2 second silence. Kashif looked at Ashfaq: “Ashfaq bhai, It was you …who killed… Fido my dog?”

Stumped, Ashfaq started to sweat: “Err … no, no, as you said, it must’ve been the Indians Agents -RAW!”

“But there are no Indians in this neighborhood,” said Kamran.

“Then it must be the Jews,” said Ashfaq.

“What Jews?” asked Kashif.

“I tell you the truth, it was really Blackwater Agents,” said Ashfaq.

“Blackwater Agents killed a naked, fornicating, paleet dog. Shouldn’t you be thanking them instead?” I said to Ashfaq.

“Oh! Right Jamshed sahib! Ashfaq blurted in a mild tone…

But, you see, he had become a rooster. It wasn’t me, Kashif! Muslims don’t lie. It was him!” said Ashfaq, pointing at me.

“But why him, Ashfaq bhai? He is Muslim too,” Kashif asked?

“No, he isn’t,” half-shouted Ashfaq. “He's no Muslim. He is … he is … he is human!”

----

P.S: Why are Muslims so adamant, that they are not able to decide what is wrong and what is right, after so much of HAVOCS in Islamic countries? They are still of the view that ‘their knowledge is best about Islam’.

We have so many problems with the religion of Islam, which isn’t a religion of peace at all! I can bet that they have not even read 10% of their Islamic Holy books. If they did, they would know the errors! Things become pretty complicated when it comes to interpreting it… When they are given 100 different interpretations of the same chapter from their holy book! In Islamic countries where 60% of its population is illiterate, it becomes so damn easy to misguide Muslims into believing any thing Islamic and prepare them to commit acts of absolute horrors.

Islamic Menace in the Americas: The First Front

The Triple Border region between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, visited by bin Laden in 1995, has become the first frontier of Islamic jihad in the Americas, where Muslims are heavily involved in organized crime syndicates, money-laundering and drug-trafficking, generating billions of dollars, part of which is spent on supporting Jihadist operations around the world...

---

In our first article, we described how Muslims first came to Latin America and how they organized the first Islamic jihad in the Americas, known as the Malé Insurrection in Brazil.

Muslims came to Latin America in multiples waves, pushed by wars of economic crisis in their countries: 1860-1900, 1900-1914, 1918-1938, 1945-1955, 1956-1970 and 1971-1984.

Latin Americans considered naïve when we talk about Islam. They are not aware of the supremacist and war-like ideology of this religion, which violently obliterates any pluralist thinking and democratic freedom, wherever it takes root. We should not blame them for this naivety. Even Europeans today have forgotten the big 1,000-year Muslim drive into the heart of that Continent, from 711 (invasion of Spain) until the decisive Muslim defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Even respected historians like Sir Steven Runciman depicted the Crusades in the 1950s as unjustified Christian attacks against the refined and pacific Muslims, while they were, in fact, a Christian reaction to nearly 400-year Muslim invasions, plunder and organized slavery upon millions of Christians of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

So, let’s not blame the naïve Latin Americans.

The First Front: Bin Laden in Brazil at the Triple Frontier

Triple Frontier region in Latin America

The renowned Brazilian weekly “Veja” published in 2003 that Bin Laden visited the city of Foz do Iguazú in Brazil in 1995. This city sits exactly on the so-called “Triple Frontier” between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. There is a 28-minute video on his visit that is kept with the ABIN (the Brazilian CIA).

At that time in 1995, bin Laden was not as big and widely known as he is today. The ABIN people just filed the video and forgot about it.

One may assume: maybe Bin Laden came all the way from Afghanistan to relax and visit the wonderful Iguaçu Falls. No, this was not the case.

True to their ideological roots based on caravan robbery and unlawful behavior as set forth by Prophet Muhammad and sanctioned by Allah in the Quran, many radical Muslims reportedly started settling in this “Triple Frontier” since end 1990s. Known for its lawless history of contraband drug trafficking and money laundering, Muslim settlers navigate the region with familiarity. If Brazilian cops go after them, they just cross the river Paraná to the neighboring Paraguayan city of Ciudad del Este and they are safe. And vice-versa.

That’s most probably the reason why bin Laden visited the area back in 1995: he was setting up a new avenue to raise funds for his terrorist operations.

Who could have informed bin Laden, sitting far away in Afghanistan and the Middle-East, that the region offered potential for illegal “businesses”?

Undoubtedly, someone from the “peaceful” Muslim immigrant community there!

Indeed, Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah has set up a drug-trafficking and illegal business network there. Hezbollah’s military commander Imad Mugniyah heads the operation in this region. He sits on the lists of most-wanted terrorists of both the FBI and the European Union, and is believed to work frequently out of Ciudad del Este (Paraguay).

Large sums of money generated from money laundering and contraband drug trafficking in the region are also funneled to finance terrorist activities of the al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in other parts of the world. US agencies estimate that smuggling accounts for US$12–13 billion revenues per year. Estimates tell us that from US$300–500 million is sent every year to finance terrorist infrastructure and operations in sensitive areas like Afghanistan and Iraq.

It was the Hezbollah operatives in this region that supported the logistics for the 1992 and 1994 terrorist attacks against the Israeli Embassy (29 dead) and the Israelite Mutual Association (85 dead) in Argentine.

The US worries do not stop there. Many of those radical Muslims acquired local citizenship in one of those three countries. Muslim proselytism among natives is highly active and successful. The native converts are providing sources of terrorist operatives from the local community. As they do not look like Arabs and can easily go to the US as tourists, the US is also highly worried about this.

Connection between Triple Border region and Kabul

Iguazú Falls picture found at al-qaeda HQ in kabul

"What the heck is this!" This is probably what the NATO soldiers exclaimed when they entered in the al-Qaeda headquarters in Kabul in 2001. According to a report from ABKnet News, the soldiers entered one room to find lots of papers from the terrorist organization scattered on the floor. They were astonished when they spotted a poster of a big scenic waterfall on the wall. Now, that was not the office of some tourist agency. Al-Qaeda people are not known for their love of Mother Nature or other gentle feelings like this.

The soldiers did not know where those waterfalls are located. The poster was sent to Germany, where intelligence officers identified as the Iguazú Falls, close to the city of Foz do Iguazú, at the Triple Border region.

What this poster was doing there in Kabul, only Allah knew… and now you know it too.

Now, everybody knows who the major sponsor and protector of Hezbollah is: Iran.

Continues in third article of this series, Islamic Menace in the Americas: Hitting the US from South, the Second Front.

---

Hezbollah Jihadist arrested at the Triple Frontier between Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina

Readers, who may think that these articles are just talking about some potential or imagined Islamist threat in Latin America, should know that the region is teeming with Muslim outlaws. Hardly have I finished this article that there appeared a hot news of arrest of a Hezbollah Jihadi operative in the Triple Frontier region (also known as Tri-Border region), as reported by the Italian news agency ANSA and the Brazilian newspaper, O Globo.

CIUDAD DEL ESTE, Paraguay, 16 June 2010 (ANSA, O Globo) - It is known to all the dangerous situation of triple border, the region is dominated by traffickers, members of the Colombian guerrillas FARC's, Brazilian and Paraguayan criminals. The arrest of Ali Moussa Hamdan, shows that international criminal gangs are working hard on this region that is fertile for criminal actions.

ASUNCION - A Lebanese citizen suspected member of the Shiite movement Hezbollah was arrested in Ciudad del Este, in the Triple Frontier region, and deported from Paraguay to Brazil, said on Thursday the Anti-drug Enforcement Agency of Paraguay (SENAD).

Mustapha Ahmad Abu Hamdan, 39 years, has against him an international order for his capture issued by the Brazilian tribunals for drug trafficking.

According to SENAD, he is also reported to be a member of a local cell of Hezbollah.

*The Lebanese Moussa Ali Hamdan was in Paraguay to reorganize the Muslim group's activities in that region*

According to the authorities, the Lebanese would be in Paraguay to "reorganizing the Islamist group in the country.

To do this, he acted under the false name of Carlos Kassen Daher, with fake Brazilian citizenship papers.

After being expelled from Paraguay, since he was there ilegally, Hamdan was handed over to Brazilian Federal Police.

According to the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color, the arrest was a result from the Special Forces operation, named Spectro.

ANSA, O Globo

As readers can see, Muslims adhere strictly to their historic behavior since the times they used to loot trade-caravans in Arabia. Here in Latin America, they are heavily engaged in organized crime syndicates, drug trafficking, smuggling and related activities.

Understanding the Muslim Mindset

Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslim mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.

Muslims’ perennial complaint is that the imperialist West—all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America—have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so today in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of Muslim nations by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes with installing in its midst the West's illegitimate stepchild, Israel—a huge thorn in their side, so they complain.

"A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable," is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their complaints against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims, which bears heavily on their hostility toward the West—a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.

1. Patriarchy and authoritarianism: The Muslim mind is imprinted with authoritarianism, which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. This authoritarian mentality encompasses all aspects of life for the Muslim. The king and his dominion as the viceroy of God, the Emir and his despotic ways, the Khan and his unchallenged rule over the tribe, the village headsman and his extensive power, and finally the father and his iron grip at home over the women and children. All these authority figures are male.

The authoritarian type poses numerous problems and presents many ramifications—ramifications much too important and complex to be comprehensively treated here. For now, it is important to understand that a person with the authoritarian personality is an extremist. He can be docility itself under certain circumstances and a maniacal murdering brute under others. He is the type who would just as happily kill or die, when he is directed to do so. He would, for instance, gladly strap on an explosive vest, in obedience to a superior’s order, and detonate it in a crowd of innocent civilians without the slightest hesitation.

2. Blind obedience: A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

Studies have shown that the authoritarian personality type can be found among all people, including Americans. The important difference is in the degree and prevalence of the condition. Islam breeds vast numbers of extremists, while in America, for instance, the prevalence is significantly lower and less severe.

3. Focus on goal: To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah—never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That’s a "family dispute" that they will resolve by their usual favorite method—brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers. There are countless instances that substantiate the "End justifies the means" guiding principle of Muslims. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa—rulings—that become directives and laws to the faithful.

Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic state, for one, made extensive use of the fatwa. Widely-known in the west is Khomeini’s fatwa condemning Selman Rushdie to death for his book. A less known fatwa of Khomeini during the last Iran-Iraq war led to the slaughter of thousands of Iranian children. Children, nearly all under 15 years of age, were given plastic keys to paradise as they were commanded by the fatwa of the imam to rush forward to clear minefields for the tanks to follow. The Islamic murderers, in obedience to the fatwa of a bloodthirsty man of Allah, had no problem in deceiving the clueless lads clinching made - in - China plastic keys to paradise.

Such is the existentialistic threat of Islam. It is a rigid stone-age authoritarian system with a stranglehold over many of the nearly one and a half billion people under its command.

4. Fatalism: One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim’s mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional—conditional on the will of Allah. “I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing,” “You will make it home, Allah willing,” “Things will work out, Allah willing,” and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job—on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. “Allah’s hand is above all other hands,” adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands—a telling point about the Muslim’s fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah’s will. If it doesn’t, it is Allah’s will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the “take charge” and “can do” mentality characteristic of Americans and others.

5. Psychological uniqueness: People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm—whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic “diet,” whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients—some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

Providing a comprehensive inventory of the psychological profile of the Muslims is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, there is no question that the psychological makeup of a Muslim, depending on the extent of his Muslim-ness, is different from that of non-Muslims. This difference, often irreconcilable as things stand presently, is at the core of the clash of Islam with the West.

Conclusion. Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature the Islamic lacks—it allows for liberty with all its attendants— good, bad, or indifferent. Those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up—particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.

Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one’s coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race.

Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both.

Muhammad's 'Dead Hand' Behind Muslim Honor Killings

Therefore, Muhammad is an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the ongoing Islamic honor-crimes against women in Islamic countries and communities around the world...

---

I have watched with great interest the ongoing debate about Muslim honor killings. On the one hand, Islamic apologists predictably maintain that Islam does not condone such conduct. Conversely, most Islamic critics do blame Islam for one reason or another. However, I have yet to see a discussion of the subject that I considered complete and which definitively resolved the debate. I tried to offer that discussion/analysis here to any rational, open-mined person.

There is much in Islamic doctrine itself that can and does directly lead to honor killings and I will discuss some but not all of that material in this analysis. Only a fraction of the material is needed to prove my case. However, before I launch into the material that directly supports Muslim honor killings, I want to start off with the most important reason, albeit indirect reason, why I believe honor killings are so prevalent in Islamic culture and among Muslims. The simple answer is the way in which women are depicted in Islamic doctrine which then poisons over-all Islamic culture.

Honor killings undeniably preceded Islam and that fact is used by Islamic apologists—many of whom are no doubt practicing taquiyya and Jihad of the Pen—to support their arguments, but the mere fact that honor killings precede the advent of Islam hardly exonerates the religion. Murder, rape, and robbery existed prior to Islam, but that hardly means that Islam should not be blamed for the murder, rape and robbery it commands, sanctions and patently causes. Most aspects of Islam existed in some form before Muhammad. Muhammad simply borrowed from Arabian Paganism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and heretical Christianity in order to develop Islam as a new, syncretic religion. Hence, if we exonerate Islam for anything that existed before its advent, we have to exonerate Islam as a new religion as well.

The worst thing that Muhammad did to the World was to falsely claim that his ideology and policies were from Allah, who he claimed to be the one God and therefore had to be followed for all time. Equally disastrous was his claim that Allah repeatedly commanded that Muhammad had to be obeyed and his life was a perfect model of behavior for all time. The end result is that he developed a religion wherein morality was determined by looking at Muhammad's inherently flawed seventh century ideology and practices. Muhammad created a religion and culture that is in large part significantly locked in the past. Muhammad attributed his philosophy, wants and desires as the word of Allah; and in doing so, he has prevented the Islamic world from advancing as it should have.

One Hadith claims that Muhammad had said: 'Islam cannot change' (Fn 1). If Islam cannot change, it should be no surprise that an Islamic culture, so overwhelmingly influenced by Islam, also has difficulty adapting and changing and, as such, its decline, continued difficulties and deplorable attitude and treatment of women are in large part to be directly attributable to Islam and its inherent flaws.

Islamic doctrine directly leads to the restrictions on and prejudices against women in Islamic culture that impedes the rights and advancement of women. It was not all that long ago that European attitudes and treatment of women were much worse than today. However, the approach toward, and treatment of, women in European culture was not mandated by actual religious doctrine. As such, European culture was able to and did advance women's rights over time. Islamic culture did not fare so well as a direct influence of Islam. We refer to the Islamic world using its majority religion to identify the culture for a compelling reason: Islam is more than just a religion. In its original form, Islam is a complete social, political, and religious way of life that absolutely dominates the lives and thoughts of fundamentalist Muslims. Islam overwhelmingly drives and dominates Islamic culture and it would be hard to overestimate Islam's role in the sad state of Islamic Civilization, including its treatment of women.

It is beyond credible dispute that Islam is an inherently misogynist religion that has resulted in untold discrimination against women. Muhammad taught that captured women were lawfully subject to slavery and rape by their male captors (Fn 2). Note that, in the Quran, references of "those whom your right hands possess" is a euphemism for captives and slaves. Today, it continues to be applied to non-Muslim women working in Muslim households in Islamic countries. It is common to hear reports of workers in Islamic countries, especially Saudi Arabia, being raped by their male employers (Fn 3).

Islamic doctrine is no more enlightened with respect to Muslim women. Muhammad declared that women are intellectually inferior to men and that they comprise the majority of Hell's occupants (Fn 4). One hadith records Muhammad as stating: "Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective" (Fn 5).

The Qur'an describes men as being above their wives, demands women's obedience to their husbands, demands that women cover themselves, and states that their husbands may beat them (Fn 6). Muslim women are given less of an inheritance than men. (Fn 7)

Today, probably the most terrible aspect of Islamic discrimination against women is that their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man's (Fn 8). This law, in addition to other aspects of Sharia Law, yields the terrible result that if a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then she must have solid evidence beyond her own testimony as the male rapist's testimony is deemed to outweigh her testimony as a matter of law. Muslim women, who fall victim to rape, sometimes find themselves jailed or stoned to death for reporting rape, because since it cannot be proven, they have effectively admitted to adultery (Fn 9).

Based on the foregoing, it seems obvious that Islam has directly impedes women's rights to advance in Islamic culture as would have otherwise been expected. Bernard Lewis eloquently assessed the problem as follows:

"According to Islamic law and tradition, there were three groups of people who did not benefit from the general Muslim principle of legal and religious equality* - unbelievers, slaves, and women. The women were obviously in one significant respect the worst-placed of the three. The slave could be freed by his master; the unbeliever could at any time become a believer by his own choice, and thus end his inferiority. Only the women were doomed forever to remain what she was - or so it seemed at the time" (Fn 10).

In my view, so it still seems.

In short, by declaring negative attributes to women as being determined by both himself and Allah, Muhammad created a situation wherein women's rights failed to advance. In the context where a man is angry, because his wife, daughter or sister is perceived to be violating Sharia Law, it is far easier to kill a woman, even a relative, when you have been led to believe that women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants and that she is "naturally, morally and religiously defective." (See Fn's 4 and 5)

Equally important, Islam is not a religion that teaches and promotes a general sense of love. There is no equivalent of 'love thy neighbor as thyself' or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' in Islam. The hatred generated by Islamic doctrine is palpable upon even the most cursory reading of Islamic doctrine. In addition to such religiously sanctioned conduct as murder and robbery, the Qur'an refers to non-Muslims in numerous derogatory ways and clearly teaches that non-Muslims are fair game for almost every type of indignity and violence. The Qur'an states that non-Muslims are not to be taken as a friend (3:28), confused (6:25), to be terrorized: "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (8:12), to be made war upon (9:5 & 29), to be considered unclean (9:28), evil and a helper of evil against God (23:97 & 25:55), to be punished (25:77), humiliated (37:18) and hated (40:35), to be beheaded (47:4) and laughed at (83:34), and assumed to be plotting against Muslims (86:15).

As if there could be any doubt based on the foregoing, the earliest biography of Muhammad originating from Ibn Ishaq flatly quotes Muhammad as stating: "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah! Those with him are violent against Unbelievers but merciful to one another… "The Qur'an is in accord: "Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other…" (Fn 11)

Islam generates so much hatred that even some of Muhammad's early successors and companions, who should have received overwhelming respect and support from Muslims, were instead murdered by fellow Muslims. A religion that cannot even promote peace and harmony amongst the companions of its founder is clearly deficient in compassion and elements of peace. One only has to look at Islamic doctrine to see that it inherently generates hatred and loathing for non-Muslims and that hatred and loathing spills over to women that are not being obedient to their male masters and Islam as the Qur'an and Hadith dictate. At that point they are often perceived as apostates, or dishonorable to the family, clan, society and to Islam itself. It is here that direct Islamic doctrine comes into play, because once the purportedly offending woman's conduct has risen to such as level, as deemed by her male master or relatives, that Islamic doctrine directly authorizes her death.

Islamic doctrine demands the killing of apostates (also blasphemers of Islam). That murderous command is vaguely set forth in the Qur'an, chapter 9, verse 12, but clearly set forth in the Hadith (Fn 12).

In light of such attitude toward women generated by Islamic doctrine, Qur'anic verses 18:74,78,80-81 can be, and often are, easily interpreted as supporting honor killings. A reading of the verses reveals why:

'so they [Moses and another man that is not identified other than as being learned in Islam] twain journeyed on till, when they met a lad, he slew him. [Moses] said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul who hath slain no man? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing. He said: This is the parting between thee and me! I will announce unto thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience. And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. And we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in purity and nearer to mercy.'

The foregoing verses also establish that in addition to apostasy, failure to believe and the rather ambiguous crime of 'rebellion' allow for a justified killing lest the parents be 'oppressed' and so that they might have a better child.

Many honor killings are done due to belief or fear that adultery has or might occur. In the case of actual adultery, Muhammad did establish a hard-to-meet evidentiary burden in order to save his beloved child-bride Aisha, but angry Muslim males easily avoid that hurdle by also attributing offending behavior such as going out without permission or the violation of other Islamic rules regarding veiling, being with unrelated men, etc. as 'rebellion' for which no clear evidentiary standards are applied.

Given the low place women hold in Islamic doctrine and the few if any sources of support or assistance available to them in their culture, they are virtual slaves to however their male guardians control their life, with little hope of intervention unless they live within a larger non-Islamic culture that they can escape to or appeal to for help.

I have not gone into the rather difficult nature of Islam's honor culture. That culture precedes the advent of Islam and, in my view, is hard to wrap up in a way that is comprehensible to anyone that has not lived within such a culture. For those interested in understanding honor culture, I suggest Raphael Patai's excellent book titled 'The Arab Mind.' Suffice it to say, however, that the honor culture is easy to reconcile with Islamic doctrine and its associated lack of love and compassion and it is no wonder that it survived the advent of Islam.

By now, hopefully you have come to agree with me that Muhammad is in fact an unindicted co-conspirator in Muslim honor killings. Even Muslims have tacitly admitted the truth of my observations about Muhammad. In 'The Future of Islam', Wilfred Scawen Blunt accurately points out that Islam is not amenable to change, because even 'students of the Sheriat (Sharia Law) have not inaptly compared the Koranic law to a dead man's hand [Muhammad's hand], rigid and cold, and only to be loosened when the hand has been cut away.'

Such an observation, given that Sharia Law is based on the Quran and hadiths, both of which are either the work of Muhammad or based upon his life and statements, reveals the nature of the Islamic faith as inextricably entwined with the life and beliefs of Muhammad. It is hardly a giant stretch from that obvious and unassailable conclusion to see why a barbaric practice such as honor killing that continues into the modern world is directly attributable to Muhammad himself and, therefore, to Islam.

If Muslims are to love women as much as fellow men, as one rightfully should, if Muslim women are to receive equal treatment as men to which they are entitled—the grip of Muhammad's 'dead hand' must be cut off from the modern world everywhere Islam holds sway.

---

• Fn. 1: Al Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 88, Number 174
• Fn. 2: Fn 17: Qur'an 4:24 and 33:52
• Fn. 3: See e.g., http://hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/7.htm#_ftn145
• Fn. 4: Al Bukhari 2:28 and 6:301
• Fn. 5: Al Bukhari 3:195
• Fn. 6: Qur'an 2:228, 4:34, and 24:31
• Fn. 7: Qur'an 4:11
• Fn. 8: Qur'an 2:282
• Fn. 9: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/pakistan/
• Fn. 10: What Went Wrong, (2002) Bernard Lewis, p67-69
• Fn. 11: Qur'an 48:29
• Fn. 12: Al Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 260: "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"

* I have a hard time swallowing that there is in fact a 'general Muslim principle of legal and religious equality.' Women, slaves and non-Muslims comprise the vast majority of the World's population and even the majority of the population of most Islamic countries. In addition, Islam has generated its fair share of racism and bigotry such that any claim that it has a general characteristic of 'legal and religious equality' is misleading.

Sexual Perversity of the Muslim Mind

Muslim men's sexual attitude is so perverse that they think they can even eye-rape women. While we can't probably ever comprehend how is that possible, but we can discern why they may entertain such perverse thinking...

---

On many occasions, I have received emails from Muslims—apparently well-educated ones, who write good English and live in Western countries—justifying the Islamic tradition of wearing veils on the ground that it helps women avoid "eye-rape" by strangers. Following is such a letter written by one Farrukh Abidi, apparently incensed by the outcome of a recent Angus Reid poll, which found most Quebecers and Canadians agree that women wearing the niqab or burqa should not receive government services, hospital care or university instruction. Abidi wrote:

Assalamu alaikum

There is no surprise if non Muslim countries ban hijab or niqab since they are non-Muslim, they don't care what Islamic values are, real surprise is that majority of Muslims women don't practice niqab or even hijab, and majority of Muslim men don't care if their wives practice this important order of Allah or not. There are hundreds of Muslim families where we won't find any single home or person, who cares about niqab or hijab.

Not only that but Muslim women now have taken a further step, which is nakedness, women wearing half sleeves which is very common, many women wear semi-naked saarhi (especially in India/Pakistan), many women now don't put the cloth sheet on their body so part of their chest stays naked.

Surprise is, Muslim men even don't realize or don't care that when their wives go out in this condition then unlimited men get aroused by watching their naked body parts, especially in non-Muslim countries, there are Christian, Jews, Hindus, Sikh, rapists, alcoholic, gangsters, street bums, homo sexual and all kind of people see them and get aroused and enjoy the view then day dream while thinking about these Muslim women and girls.

Can you imagine what is the level of ghaira of these Muslim men? Majority of Muslims men unknowingly are making it easy for unlimited and all kind of men to enjoy and get aroused and pleasure with their wives by allowing them to live without hijab or with nakedness cloths.

Women don’t really understand the nature of men so they wear naked kind of cloths without knowing that unlimited and all kind of men are enjoying with them.

I know some of them purposely not practicing hijab to attract men, but the fact is, women listen to their husbands, if husbands help and encourage their wives then I believe 90% of married women will start practicing hijab.

Those Muslim women who are not practicing proper hijab, they are not living respectful life, they choose disrespectful life just to please their husbands, why won’t they choose respectful life if their husbands pleased with that?

The thing that really surprises me is that how Muslim men tolerate such a disturbing condition of their wives?

With this all around the Muslim world, Muslim's act surprised and complain “Why non-Muslim countries are not treating us nicely and fairly.”

Why would they? Do we give any importance to Islamic values?

Jazakallah

Farrukh Abidi

I will discuss only the Muslim idea of how a woman, not covered head-to-toe with black robes, can be eye-raped—i.e. sexually enjoyed simply by looking at them—by strangers.

Although Muslims accuse (as Abidi has done) non-Muslims of having such a perverse sexual attitude, it actually exposes the underlying thinking of their own that one can rape a woman just by looking at her exposed face, legs, hands or a bit of her breast. Having been a Muslim for 35 years, I would not be surprised.

Mumin Salih, a Syrian-born Arab and ex-Muslim, has quite correctly outlined the Muslim sexual attitude as thus:

The culture of strict sexual segregation practiced in the Gulf States, and some other Muslim countries, make some Muslims behave like wild sexual beasts. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the mere sight of a woman’s leg can be sexually-arousing experience to men. Women without total coverings were described by Australian Imam, Taj al-Hilaly, as uncovered meat; in other words, mouth-watering meals to would-be predators.

I have known how young Muslims in Islamic countries experience a rush of adrenaline and blood down their body to their male instrument, when they, by chance, happen to see the shoulder-ribbon of a girl's bra, accidentally exposed. This would tell well what kind of experience Muslim men may have when they see women with exposed thighs or part of the teat. Let me tell from my experience that, despite Muslims' saintly façade, they are most crazy about watching porn.

Men from conservative social backgrounds, where mixing of men and women are relatively restricted as Muslim societies are and takes pride in, are likely to feel sexual excitement more easily when they spot a girl's body-parts a little exposed.

But this maniac sexual attitude is also shaped by how a society or its religious faith looks at sex and women. We humans are capable of being charitable like the legendary philanthropist Hatim Ta'i, but can also be robbers, plunderers and looters like his contemporary Prophet Muhammad (Muhammad had attacked the Ta'i community, plundered it and forced Hatim's children to embrace Islam). Our attitude toward various aspect and issues of life is shaped by how we groom it, based on our social and ethical outlook.

Muslims can surely be as best as their Prophet was, given that Muhammad is seen as an ideal human example for Muslims to follow in all aspects of life at all times. Let me cite this Sunnah of the Prophet, which would explain why Muslims in particular entertain such perverse attitude toward women and sex.

The Prophet was once visiting his adopted son Zayd, when he was away. When he called Zayd, his newly-married wife Zainab answered from inside their ramshackle house that Zayd was away. But Muhammad could not hold his curiosity. Instead of walking straight back home, he peeped into the house. And there he saw Zainab, his daughter-in-law, in flimsy dress on a hot summer day of Arabia. Muhammad was awe-struck by the attractive near-naked body of beautiful Zaynab, and went away saying: “Praise be to Allah, who can change how the heart feels”.

What came next would dismay any decent mind, although Muslims hold it as sacred tradition of the Prophet worth emulating forever. While a decent father-in-law would walk away feeling ashamed of making the mistake of peeping in, Muhammad probably experienced the greatest rush of adrenaline in his body ever by the alluring sight of young and beautiful Zainab's sexy body. And how did he control his once-in-a-life-time arousal? Here's probably the story:

Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3240:

Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

While a connection of this story to Zainab hasn't probably been made in Islamic literature, it is more than certain that this was the aftermath of the prophet's memorable encounter with Zainab, unless the Prophet was in the habit of going around and peeping into the privacy of women in Medina (That would make him an even worse pervert, wouldn't it?). Interestingly, he took his wife of the same name to bed to cool his arousal by semi-naked Zainab. Was he fantasizing, while cooling his hard-on, as if he was doing it with his daughter-in-law Zainab?

Apart from this, we know the prophet's extremely perverse sexual infatuation: His engagement in unrestricted polygamy, his infatuation for little Aisha and thighing upon her until she turned nine and ready for vaginal penetration, his capturing of infidel women in war and taking the prettiest in the lot to bed on the same night, and his sending of his wife Asma to her father Omar's house lying that Omar had called her to discuss something so that he could sleep with slave-girl Maria in Asma's bed.

And in the present case, Muhammad's encounter with Zainab did not end there. He played all kinds of tricks, even called down help from Allah to discredit the rather noble Arab tradition of adoption in Islam, so that he could make Zainab, his adopted son's wife, his own wife, which was deemed immoral in the then Arab society.

When this prophet hold the image of perfection in sexual activity and attitude for all times in the Muslim mind, it is easy to understand why Muslim men feel that it is possible—or they are capable to be accurate—to eye-rape a liberally-dressed woman, as if they experience orgasm as they see a women pass by with her leg, hand, face or a bit of cleavage exposed.

While above-mentioned hadith explain the prophet's sexual perversity, it also clearly shows what a wife is for to her husband in Islam. He came back home with an intense sexual arousal after seeing semi-naked woman in the neighbourhood, and his wife at home must help cool down his sexual urge for the neighbourhood woman immediately and with no question asked. And here we are infidels, we have to be mindful of the wish of the wife if she is in a mood to do it; and quite often she is tired, not in a mood, etc. etc. And under the same situation, if we would demand sex, we will surely be thrown out forever.

When this sexual perversity and that the thinking that women are nothing but a tool for men's sexual enjoyment form the foundation of sexual ethics of a society or people, it is not difficult to grasp why Muslims can think that they can rape a woman just by looking at exposed parts of her body. This perverse sexual ethics also explain as to why Muslims in the West, despite being exposed to liberal culture like other immigrants such as Hindus from India (who gradually turn liberal), fail to change their attitude and behavior toward sex and women.

It is a fact that Muslims' perverse sexual attitude makes women—howsoever decently dressed—victim of sexual assault in bazaars, streets, shopping malls and any crowded place in Muslim countries. And they fail to change this attitude, groomed by sacred tradition, toward women even after coming the West; they engage in the same kind of sexual behaviors—violent molestation and rapes of women—at every opportunity. One may recall high rates of rapes of white women in Muslin neighborhoods in Sydney, Malmo (Sweden) and other Muslim-dominated areas in Western countries. Some Muslim clerics have even proudly supported those rapes, calling the liberally-dressed women "uncovered meats" on offer, and therefore the true offenders. And if you are Muslim insider and have met Muslim men gossiping, you will find that such a line of thinking is widespread among them: Those flimsily-dressed kuffar women are nothing better than whores and quite deserve to be raped.

Now, readers should have no difficulty in understanding why Muslim men think that they can rape a woman by just looking at the exposed parts of her body.

Islam & Green Movement: Prince Charles' a Blithering Idiot

Prince Charles told an audience at Oxford to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' to protect the environment. Only a blithering idiot can say such a thing, given Islam has little regard for the environment (Muslim world taken no initiative to protect it either in recent years)...

---

In a move sure to infuriate people of common sense, the Prince of Wales has just sold humanity (and the earth) down the river with his recent remarks about Islam leading the way in the Green Movement, as reported in the Daily Mail UK:

Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment.

In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam.

He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment -- which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'....

He added: 'The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason -- and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us.

'Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.'

The bonehead Prince Charlie made his pro-Islam comments during a speech at Oxford's Centre for Islamic Studies, in which he so blatantly sucked up to his hosts/sponsors that the audience appeared to be completely disgruntled to the point of revulsion.

What Islamic "spiritual principles," Charles? The ones embodied in the Koran and other Islamic texts that say Jews are "apes and pigs" who should be hunted down and slaughtered? Or the Koranic verses that dictate all non-Muslims must be murdered or that otherwise incite Muslim followers to violence? Or how about the Koranic scriptures and commentaries that say women are worth one-half or less then men, that men are their superiors and essentially own them as property?

How does any of this hateful rubbish constitute Islamic respect for the "intricately balanced web of life around us?" Have you ever seen the practices of Islamic animal slaughter or read the derogatory Islamist remarks about dogs and other animals? While the West can barely get a handle on animal abuse, at least it tries, but you can bet animal abuse is far more rampant in many if not most Muslim countries.

And associating environmentalism with Islam is another disgrace that will completely turn off millions of people from joining the Green Movement. From the looks of things -- such as the proposed London mega-mosque, which was planned to have sand all around it -- if Muslim fanatics were left to their own, they would turn the entire planet into one big desert. Yep, that's a fine environmental principle.

Where is the great environmental record of rabid Islamists, Charles, who are busy blowing things up, cranking polluting oil out of the ground and reproducing at world-destroying rates? (Yes, yes, there is room for vast improvement in all these areas in the non-Muslim world as well, but at least we are not making any absurd pretenses here about great "spiritual values" where there are none -- and at least we acknowledge the problem and try to work on it, rather than lying about the situation, as Charles is doing here.)

Thanks, Charles, for selling one-half of humanity down the road to slavery. (And the other half as well, as you men will all need to get down on your knees and stick your arses in the air five times a day in a nonsensical and time-consuming ritual that will surely spell the end to productivity in the civilized world.)

Charles, if free women (and men) become enslaved under Islamic domination, you and your other politico-buddy sellouts and dhimwits will be largely to blame. Shame on you for now and forever!

Islamic Menace in the Americas: The First Jihad

One may think that Latin America is largely devoid of Muslims and safe from their menace. It's not. Things are turning ugly there too. Here's the first in a series of article to depict the Islamic menace over there.

---

Infiltration of Muslims in Latin America goes back to the colonial times since 1492, when they were brought as slaves from Africa. A small part of them were Muslims, and, over time, they managed to create Muslim communities in some regions. Those seed communities, aided by the influx of new Muslim slaves, kept Islam alive in the continent for centuries.

On January 25, 1835, there was an insurrection, called “Insurrection of the Malés”, in the city of Salvador (Brazil). The word “Malé” is from the African language ioruba “imali”, which means “Muslim”. Some revisionist historians later on tried to attribute this insurrection to racial reasons; but to the Malés, who waged the 'Islamic revolution', and it becomes rather more clear today that, they had a radical aspiration: To create an Islamic state in that region of Brazil.

The Malé revolutionaries were well organized and their first objective was to storm several police and army quarters in the city for grabbing weapons. Two hundred Malés were confronted when they were about to invade de Army Cavalary Fort. Three hundred tried to storm the police headquarters. Others went for the Infantry Fort in the city.

Luckily, the Brazilian authorities did react swiftly, thanks exclusively to one African woman, who informed the police about the planned Islamic insurrection. If it were not for this intelligence, the situation could have gone terribly wrong.

Most of the participating Malé revolutionaries were NOT slaves anymore. They were freed slaves and worked in their own activities or shops around the city, as merchants, artisans, shoemakers, tailors, masons, barbers and such. They had their labour leagues, through which they were indoctrinated with the Muslim supremacist ideology. Through meetings at these work-cooperatives that they did organize the Islamic revolution.

Objectives of the Malé Islamic revolution

Their main objective was not to fight social injustice and discrimination or to free themselves from “white oppression” as most were already free, but to:

1. Eliminate all Christians and the Christian faith in the region
2. Creation of an Islamic government

The blueprint of the revolution was written in Arabic. The planned extermination of Christians was to be independent of race: white or black. Their secret plan was also to kill the black Africans, who practiced Animist religions, although, ironically, those same Animists were supporting the Muslim revolution.

The timing of the revolt was fixed to match the end of holy month of Ramadan. When they went to wage Jihad, the Malés wore the typical Muslim white robes and hung in their necks small pieces of wood with carved sayings of the Koran, as well as talismans to protect them against the “jinns”, the nasty spirit in Arab myths.

An Islamic inscription (Quran 97) displayed at State Museum of Bahia (Brazil).

Most of the Malés received Islamic education at young age in madrasas back in Africa. We all know today that madrasas, such as in Pakistan, are the places where Muslim kids are brainwashed with extremist teachings of Islam. And this is not something new, but has been a millennial tradition in Islam.

The rebels in the 1835 Malé Revolution numbered 1,500. One would think today that they were not so many. But in the context of present population-size in that region, this would mean something like 24,000 armed Muslim rebels today.

Of the 1,500 Islamic radicals, 70 died during the revolt, while 200 were arrested but freed later on. Seven were executed and 10 were deported back to Africa. This shows a considerable degree of leniency of the authorities, considering that if those Muslims succeeded in establishing the first Islamic government in the Americas, they would have not spared the lives of non-Muslims.

Flotilla Campaign: Turkey's Brinkmanship against Israel

The Flotilla campaign was a well-calculated stunt by Turkey's Islamist regime, aimed at political windfall at home and its desire to cut all ties with the ever-hated Jewish state. And it has gone perfect for them.

---

On the backdrop of the Gaza Flotilla misadventure to force Israel withdraw blockade on Gaza, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that "Israel stands to lose its closest ally in the Middle East if it does not change its mentality."

And calling for punishing Israel for "state terrorism" over its bungled operation on board the Flotilla ships that left 9 pro-Hamas Turkish activists dead, Turkey has already ordered reduction of "economic and defence ties with Israel", probably its first step toward gradual freezing of diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

For Turkey, its diplomatic ties with Israel, established soon after Israel's founding in 1948, was never one of mutual friendship or cordiality, but of strategic necessity. The Kemalist secularists saw alliance with Israel as an antidote to theocratic Islamists at home and in the Arab world. In the 1990s, the relationship deepened further in an effort to undermine the common enemy, Syria, which was supporting the Kurdish separatists (PKK) against Ankara. Israel provided military hardware and intelligence to Turkey on PKK activities in Syria, when Damascus was hosting of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.

With Islamists themselves now in power, the Kurdish separatist movement on the decline and Syria turned an ally after the current Islamist government took power, Turkey's ties with Israel has turned meaningless, indeed a liability, for the current Islamist government.

Much has been said of the Islamist root of the AKP government in Turkey. Let us review here the AKP politicians' attitude toward Israel. The AKP Islamists' spiritual guru is Prof. Erbakan, who founded the National Salvation Party (NSP), as an Islamist front against Kemalist secularists. Top leaders of the current AKP government were groomed by Ebrakan. Both PM Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul served as mayoral, ministerial and parliamentary candidates in Erbakan's parties to hone their political careers. But realizing that the staunchly secularist army would not allow them to stay in power on a visibly Islamic card, they disguised themselves as secular-democrats and formed the soft-Islamic AKP party.

Let us take a look at Prof Erbakan's attitude toward the Jews and Israel. Erbakan is a fanatical anti-Semite with a pan-Islamic ambition of the former Ottoman days. During the last election, he compared Zionists and Jews with 'Bacteria' and 'Disease', and said:

"Do you know what the safety of Israel means? It means that they will rule the 28 countries from Morocco to Indonesia. Since all the Crusades were organized by the Zionists…”

He wrote virulently anti-Semitic commentaries in its media mouthpiece, Milli Gazette, in February & April 2005. Citing anti-Jewish Quranic verses (3:112, 2:61 etc.), he wrote:

“In fact, no amount of pages or lines would be sufficient to explain the Quranic chapters and our Lord Prophet's [Muhammad's] words that tell us of the betrayals of the Jews... The prophets sent to them, such as Zachariah and Isaiah, were murdered by the Jews...”

Most observers would argue that leaders of the AKP have moderated themselves and do not have the same anti-Semitic attitude like their mentor Prof. Erbakan anymore. But, let me emphasize from my experience of living a Muslim for nearly 40 years that anti-Jewish hatred, with which Muslims are groomed since childhood, never declines, but may only intensify, so long one remains a Muslim. This applies much more to Muslims, who make their career based on appeal to Islam.

Let us also try to understand PM Erdogan's Islamic mind. He has claimed himself to be “a servant of the Sharia" and “the Imam of Istanbul", and emphatically said: "The Mosques are our barracks, the Domes are helmets, the Minarets are Bayonets and the faithful are soldiers." He has mocked Kemalist secularists and expressed his desire to turn Turkey into an Islamic state and to inaugurate the parliament by reciting the Quran.

Unsuspecting observers must also recall what Erdogan once said of his party's current guise: “Democracy was a train, from which you could alight once you reached your destination.”

AKP has already reached its destination with firm support amongst an increasingly radicalized Muslim population; so it can now throw away its secular-democratic guise. And it has already started. Didn't the Saudi King recently ordain Erdogan with the "King Faisal International prize for service to Islam"?

As concern Turkey's diplomatic contact with Israel, it was meant to undermining the same Islamists currently in power. Given current government's intense hatred of Israel, Turkey's ties with the Jewish state would naturally be the most hated or unpleasant element, it has deal with. The AKP government cannot but do away with Turkey's diplomatic ties with Israel as soon as possible, and hit back at it if possible.

In fact, the current Islamist government has started both processes: gradually freezing the diplomatic ties with Israel as well as hitting back at it. Over the past few years, Turkey has become one of the fiercest critics of Israel in the Muslim world, fiercer than Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It would be accurate to say that Turkey falls on the Iran-Syria axis in the Muslim world, when it comes to Israel. Turkey's Islamist government is also gradually freezing military contact and joint military exercise with the Jewish state.

What Erdogan's government eagerly looking for is an excuse for complete break of diplomatic contacts with Israel. It is not easy for Islamists, as members of AKP are, to deal with Israel as a friend or ally, when they hold intense hatred for them deep in their heart.

Moreover, Turkey's continued contact with Israel is the greatest political liability for the AKP Islamists at home. They thrive on Islamic appeal amongst the populace, and intense hatred of Israel and Jews is a common feature of their support base. Only by trying to undermine or harm the Jewish state could they consolidate their appeal and support amongst the populace. But if they try to be a friendly ally for the Jewish state, that will be a political suicide for them; it will kill their support.

Since coming to power, the AKP government's action and attitude toward Israel clearly suggest that they are walking a tight-rope: Gradually walking away from Israel, which is not only helping them avoid the path of suicide, but also helping consolidate their political capital at home.

In the present case, Erdogan's government has acted as the Muslim world's most committed and vocal supporter of the Flotilla campaign, intended to undermine Israel; and after the bungled Israeli operation, it has also placed itself as the harshest critic of the Israeli action amongst Muslim governments.

All these would undoubtedly help solidify AKP's hold and support amongst the Turkish populace, throwing their secular rivals into political obscurity. So, when Erdogan said, "Turkey tried to preserve their relationship, but the Israeli government did not understand this, and committed a historical mistake," it's all a dishonest political stunt and excuse to make a complete break with Israel on the diplomatic front, which is not far away. Had Turkey valued its diplomatic ties with Israel, it could not be the provocative eager supporter, indeed the organizer, of the Flotilla campaign to undermine Israeli blockade on Gaza, which the Israelis say helps undermine Islamist militants' attack from the Hamas territory and evidently so.

(It should be understood here that IHH—an Islamic relief organization in Turkey and a staunch supporter of the current Islamist government—which organized the Flotilla campaign reportedly has ties to radical Islamic groups and have helped and financed travel of militant Muslim fighters from Turkey to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya and Uzbekistan etc. to fight Jihad. Given most Islamic charity organizations even in the West have been found to have ties to militant Islamist groups, this is hardly surprising. And for Bülent Yildirim, the main IHH organizer, the Gaza Flotilla was a Jihad operation, not a humanitarian one.)

Despite Erdogan's bluff that his government tried to preserve relationship with Israel, the evidence is all too clear that his government was eagerly looking for what transpired over the past week. It was part of Erdogan's government's calculated attempt to hit back at the Jewish state, which, for decades, has acted as an ally of the Kemalist secularists to undermine and suppress his ideological Islamists brethren in Turkey, including his own AKP party.

The whole Flotilla campaign was a well-calculated stunt, orchestrated by the Turkey's Islamist regime. And it has gone perfect for them, which would bring them great political windfall at home. While Israel is the major loser on the surface, Turkey's secularists are probably a bigger loser than Israel.

Inside Iran's Sex Slave Industry

The misogynistic Islamist Mullah regime of Iran are turning the women into sex-slaves...

---

Iranians protesting election of 2009 (Photo by Emiliya_1998)

With the approaching first anniversary on June 12th of last year's controversial Iranian presidential elections, officials of the Islamic Republic are bracing for possibly millions of protestors pouring into the streets in a show of strength that could eventually spell the end of the government's 30-year reign of terror and oppression. So terrified is the current regime, apparently, that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, on the recent celebration of Ayatollah Khomeini's birthday, ordered all Iranians living abroad to return to their native land to be hanged or jailed for being "enemies of the Islamic Republic."

The list of the Iranian people's grievances against the Islamic Republic headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is long indeed, and includes the blatant and vicious oppression of women, manifested most pathologically in government-sponsored prostitution and sex slavery.

While the regime's apologists put forth weak arguments and excuses for the blatant Islamist abuse of women in Iran—claiming, for example, that because there are female Iranian lawyers and doctors women are thus treated well and fairly—festering below this shallow surface remains a horrendous record of sexism and misogyny justified by classical, not "radical" or "extremist," Islamic teachings.

Iranian Shah's wife, before 1979 revolution

One need only look at images preceding the Islamic fundamentalist takeover of Iran in 1979 to see how poorly women have fared in the past three decades under what some Iranians consider a criminal occupation of their ancient nation. Says Iranian-American writer Amil Imani, for example:

"Under the late Shah, Iranian women were the most respected females in the entire Muslim world. These thugs who are currently running my native country are not Iranians but packs of Muslim wolves who are simply following the examples of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.

"This misogynist religion of Allah is custom-made for the savage male. A faithful follower of Allah is allowed to have as many as four permanent wives—and replace any of them at any time he wants—as well as an unlimited number of one-night or one-hour-standers that he can afford to rent. But, woe unto a woman if she even has a single love affair with another man. Nothing less than death by stoning is her just punishment."

Mr. Imani, an ex-Muslim co-founder of Former Muslims United, has good reason to make what sound to the untrained eye to be inflammatory remarks about the Islamic Republic, as he has watched from the safety of his well-appreciated adopted home of America the absolute oppression of his beloved Persian people, male and female, by rabid Islamists who use Islamic sharia law in order to establish a male-dominant, sexist and misogynistic regime that abuses, enslaves and exploits girls and women to the hilt. This exploitation and abuse include the kidnapping of girls and women off the streets to be enslaved in government-approved brothels, as well as to be trafficked in sex slavery around the Arab world and elsewhere globally.

Iranian brothels service male "pilgrims"

The government-approved or run whorehouses with kidnapped sex slaves who service male "pilgrims" and others are Iran's "dirty little secret," which mainstream media and human-rights activists may be ignoring as a "cultural idiosyncrasy" or "religious freedom" but which is in reality the cause of the intense suffering of thousands of Persian girls and women, as men have turned them into sex slaves, to be used in Iran as well as to be sold to men in other countries, including in the West, according to Dr. Donna M. Hughes of the University of Rhode Island.

Dr. Hughes is a "leading international researcher on trafficking of women and children" whose studies have included the trafficking of girls and women in such diverse places as not only Iran, Russia and Korea, but also the United States, France and Great Britain. In "Islamic Fundamentalism and the Sex Slave Trade in Iran" (2005), Hughes writes:

"A measure of Islamic fundamentalists’ success in controlling society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women. In Iran for 25 years, the ruling mullahs have enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments on women and girls, enslaving them in a gender apartheid system of segregation, forced veiling, second-class status, lashing, and stoning to death.

"Joining a global trend, the fundamentalists have added another way to dehumanize women and girls: buying and selling them for prostitution. Exact numbers of victims are impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teenage girls in prostitution. The magnitude of this statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the city. The trade is also international: thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad.

"The head of Iran’s Interpol bureau believes that the sex slave trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today. This criminal trade is not conducted outside the knowledge and participation of the ruling fundamentalists. Government officials themselves are involved in buying, selling, and sexually abusing women and girls.

"Many of the girls come from impoverished rural areas. Drug addiction is epidemic throughout Iran, and some addicted parents sell their children to support their habits. High unemployment—28 percent for youth 15-29 years of age and 43 percent for women 15-20 years of age—is a serious factor in driving restless youth to accept risky offers for work. Slave traders take advantage of any opportunity in which women and children are vulnerable. For example, following the recent earthquake in Bam, orphaned girls have been kidnapped and taken to a known slave market in Tehran where Iranian and foreign traders meet.

"Popular destinations for victims of the slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. According to the head of the Tehran province judiciary, traffickers target girls between 13 and 17, although there are reports of some girls as young as 8 and 10, to send to Arab countries...."

Hughes's article also reports the breaking up of several prostitution networks thriving in Turkey and Europe, extending to Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. In the Islamic fundamentalist country of Pakistan, she explains, also exist institutionalized brothels in which these sex slaves often end up.

Islamic sexism and misogyny

Iranian women today
(Photo by Zoom Zoom)

While Islamist apologists may argue that sex slavery exists around the world, exploiting innocent girls, women, boys and men, the fact will remain that in these Muslim nations this human-rights abuse has become institutionalized, with government-run brothels in Iran, for instance, offering what is called mutah or a temporary contract that allows men to "marry" for sexual purposes women other than the four concurrent wives alloted by Muhammad. Many of these brothels are near "holy sites," so that male pilgrims can "relieve their urges" while on a "religious" pilgrimage.

These sexist practices are justified by Quranic verses and other Islamic texts that proclaim women to be inferior subhumans to be used and exploited at will by men, who are given permission to beat and control them as they would property and animals.

For example, the Quranic verse or ayah 4:24 is held up as justification for mutah:

"Also [forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves. Such is the decree of God. All women other than these are lawful for you, provided you court them with your wealth in modest conduct, not in fornication. Give them their dowry for the enjoyment you have had of them as a duty; but it shall be no offense for you to make any other agreement among yourselves after you have fulfilled your duty. Surely God is all-knowing and wise."

Believers in a literal and eternal interpretation of the Quran/Koran seem to have only one place to go with this verse, which basically says that Muslim men can own sex slaves. Moreover, according to Islamic or sharia law, a woman has no right to divorce, as only a man does, a right he may freely exercise in some Muslim areas merely by saying the word talaq—"I divorce you"—three times. A man can then proceed to marry another woman and another after that by doing the same thing.

The notorious Quranic ayah 4:34 makes men superior to women and allows them to beat them:

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them."

Woman in niqab in Yemen
(Photo by Steve Evans)

As concerns the guarding of "unseen parts," in some Muslim sects, a woman's entire body is considered awrah or "naked" and thus must be completely cloaked. In other words, a woman is wholly a sex organ. In other sects, a woman's hands and face may be exposed, but the rest of her is a "walking vagina" and must be covered up in loose-fitting clothes so that no man but her husband-owner may see her shape.

Additionally, there are many hadiths or commentaries on the Quran and Muhammad that disparage women and essentially allow for their subjugation and enslavement. In the Tabari (9:113) or History of the Prophets and Kings, written in the 10th century by a respected Islamic scholar and theologian, we read the following about women:

"Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Islamic misogyny is so rampant that it extends to the Muslim hell, the main occupants of which are women, allegedly seen by Muhammad himself:

"I stood at the gates of Paradise, most of those who entered there were poor, I stood at the gates of Hell, most of those who went in there, were women."

Forced prostitution is illegal in civilized countries

While it may be argued that even the United States has legal, government-approved brothels, as in the state of Nevada, the fact is that forced prostitution is against American law and is generally vigorously prosecuted wherever it is found. The victims of forced prostitution in Western countries are not imprisoned and raped as they are in Iran and elsewhere, as part of the "religious" punishment according to Islamic or sharia law. Nor is the sexploitation of women in the West justified by "sacred scriptures" or "religious traditions" of any sort, although sexism and misogyny themselves are also common to the other Abrahamic faiths of Judaism and Christianity, as well as other religions.

In the end, the fact will remain that according to mainstream, classical Islam, women are subordinate to men and can be exploited at will. As the Quran (2:223) also says:

"Women are your fields: go then, into your fields whence you please."

Concerning the Iranian Islamic fundamentalists, Hughes states, "Misogyny is at the heart of their ideology and is the framework of their state structure and authority." Until the world grapples with the fact of religiously justified sexism and misogyny, it cannot call itself enlightened and civilized.

In conclusion, the videos appended to this article give a sad view of what has happened to so many women in Iran since Islamic fundamentalists took over—as well as what happens to any nation that oppresses women and does not allow them the opportunity to pursue their own natural and God-given gifts and talents. As Dr. Hughes also says, "Only the overthrow of the mullahs and the defeat of their theocracy will liberate women from a system of contempt and hatred for women." The lovely women—and men—of Iran deserve a much better life than they have been consigned to these many years, including the right to self-rule in a free, democratic state.

---

D.M. Murdock is the author of controversial books and articles on comparative religion and mythology that can be found at Truth Be Known, Stellar House Publishing and Freethought Nation.