Feb 202016


The band “Pussy Riot” invade a Christian Cathedral in Moscow


The term LGBT was invented to refer jointly to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. It connotes both a lifestyle and sexual preference. It is important to note that the term Gay has evolved to refer to a “preference” instead of an inborn trait. At an earlier stages of Gay discourse, it would appear that the term “Gay” was coined more in reference to those that showed an inborn drive for same-sex relationships, whether sexual or not. Today, the LGBT community will be critical of anyone trying to limit the phenomenon to only those who have a natural tendency, choosing instead to view it as a lifestyle choice.

LGBT has developed in six phases as a phenomenon over the past four decades.
• Being gay as a personal condition,
• being gay as a personal choice,
• being gay as a social choice,
• celebrating being gay,
• actively advocating for the mainstreaming of gay discourse and lastly,
• actively sitting in judgement those in opposition to the phenomenon.

I wish to approach the discussion on LGBT along four perspectives.
1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice
2. LGBT as a topic within a broader human rights discussion
3. LGBT as manifested in society
4. LGBT within Islamic and religious discourse.

1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice

LGBT is an emblem rather than a fully substantive lifestyle in my view. If LGBT is at its root a sexually referenced choice, then I cannot see how it can represent a complete or comprehensive comment on sexual discourse. LGBT does not provide an exhaustive frame for discussing sexuality. After all, it omits bestiality, incest and polygamy as some examples. Neither does LGBT provide a complete or comprehensive framework for any meaningful lifestyle discourse. The human experience is frightfully complex, and, reducing it to the sexual is limiting in the extreme.

What is LGBT emblematic of? Same-sex attraction and relationships have always been there. What makes it different in our times? My humble submission is that LGBT represent the most profound attack on the normative. It represents the highest form of rejection of any positivist or objectivist world view. It represents the most visible (and colourful) celebration of the break with modernity and pre-modernity. The gay movement takes the archetypal traditional human taboo topic, namely sex, and celebrates the break with traditional approaches to it. It is therefore not enough for the LGBT activist to recognize sexual deviation from the norms, but instead, chooses to celebrate it. It represents a sort of shock treatment to normative systems, with the goal of unfreezing existing attitudes. It makes a mockery of the dominant normative social paradigm, to the point of de-legitimizing it.

LGBT has grown out of post-modernity. As an activism, it can perhaps be seen as a natural outgrowth from a society where pleasure-seeking and nihilism constitute the foundation. A society un-anchored in a set of transcendent norms, where a unique personal identity becomes more and more contested, provides the compost from which the activism has grown. LGBT provides more than an identity to its proponents. It redefines a moral and ethical discourse within which the LGBT identity is not only shaped, but in fact heroically adopted as an emblem of that new ethical and moral framework. It presents moral, naturalistic and social relativism to humanity as a new code of existence, placing the LGBT community in its vanguard.

There are many other bases from which identity has been shaped; Economic status, dietary preference, mode of worship or appearance being some examples. The problem with any of these becoming emblematic of the new moral relativism is the absence of any substantive and real currency that these would have in society. If the vegans of the world were to launch a movement to make veganism the emblem for moral relativism it would simply not have enough impact. Choosing to make an economically defined category the basis has been done before within Marxist analysis, which places the human, as the worker at the heart of its discourse. In a neo-liberal, market dominated society; the money masters would simply not allow this. Variant modes of worship or non-worship, such as the neo-atheist movement and other post-modern new-age ideas have had some good impact, but not nearly as successful as the LGBT discourse. The element that these phenomena lack, and which is probably the key to the success of LGBT activism is the element of victimhood. As with Zionism, which really only received mass global sympathy after the Holocaust, LGBT enjoys a wave of popular sympathy due to the perceived victim status of gays throughout history.

A final word on the LGBT lifestyle is that it does appear to be a middle class phenomenon. The LGBT agenda is not being visibly directed by the poor, but rather driven by the wealthy middle class.

2. LGBT within broader human rights

The post-modern condition has created an obsession with individual identities. These Individual identities have had to be forged from whatever source possible. Religion, nationality, race and culture provided some useful sources where people could create for themselves an individual identity, in the new confusing pluralistic society. Nowhere was this more relevant than in societies such as in the “melting pot” USA or the “rainbow nation” South Africa. The “rainbow nation”, where each color manifests separately is a very effective metaphor of the new identity-obsessed society. In an attempt to subscribe to a human rights culture and individual rights, the new pluralistic society has virtually sanctified individual or sectional identities. LGBT, as a newly emerged social choice, has joined other sectional identities as being sanctified by law.

The problem is that the human rights emphasis on sectional and individual identities has come at a cost of an emphasis on core human and social and economic rights. Why do we hear of “Gay Rights” as human rights, “Freedom of Religion” as a human right, but never, ever, is it legitimate to express a “Living Wage” as a human right, or “Proper Shelter” as a human right or “Sound Health Care” as a human right, enshrined by constitutions and guaranteed by the state? Society has been trained to tolerate the worst forms of degradation of its citizens due to poverty and inequality, yet seems to react hysterically when individual freedoms or rights are contravened.

The reality is clear. Sectional bourgeois identities have taken over, nay hijacked the grand narrative within the new post modern plural society. The subjugation of the grand narrative by sectional narratives is a bane and not a boon. It represents a type of fascism that denies human rights to the masses, while sanctifying them for the minority. In the wake of this subjugation, popular truisms and values have been remolded to reflect this focus on the bourgeois identity. Human rights are now the rights of bourgeois to choose their sectional pursuits and frolics. Injustice, as a universal value has been eclipsed by terms such as non-sexism, gender equality, non-racialism and freedom-of-sexual-preference. The new political correctness reflects and enforces this. The grand narrative of poverty and inequality within South Africa, coincidentally the most unequal society in the world, is not regarded at the same level of urgency and hysteria for example as the narrative around gay rights protection, and other sectional identity rights. Why?

It is time that a call for a broadly just society is revived. The poor, the humiliated and the degraded need to be placed at the centre space of liberation politics, a space that is currently being squatted on by LGBT and other sectional bourgeois interest groups. The real and urgent needs of the people cannot go on being subordinated by the agendas of bourgeois identity interests. Why would LGBT (or any other sectional agenda) feel uncomfortable in a society where justice is guaranteed to all collectively and not articulated separately for the different sections? My humble opinion is that the stratification of society into sanctified sectional agenda groupings has become the biggest tool in the broad neo-liberal assault on general human dignity. Human dignity is no longer the common collective pursuit of all people, but has become the narrow prize for the interest or lobby group. The neo-liberal project guarantees freedom to pursue one’s own agenda, but not the freedom for society to pursue the greater good. It is time to re-sanctify the call for “justice for all”, and to curtail and de-sanctify the call for “justice for the interest group”. LGBT, the nation, the culture, mode of worship and any other mode by which people shape their identity needs to seek its own justice within this broad call.

3. LGBT as manifested in society

The various components of the LGBT phenomenon seem to be the following: Legitimating, Celebrating, and Challenging.

The legitimating component has been very effectively co-opted within the broader gender discourse. It is strange to see how gender activists initially grabbed hold of the LGBT agenda. In this new merged discourse, the lesbian seems to represent the pinnacle of feminist parity with the male gender, and male homosexuality the pinnacle of the liberated male, freed from all chauvinist masculinity. The merging of these agendas has reached a point where critical gender theory has become fully instrumentalised and harnessed by the LGBT agenda. A discussion on gender equality no longer seems complete without a discussion on sexual preference rights. The LGBT agenda has therefore benefitted from both these two revisionists and critical theories.

The celebrative component of the movement is manifested in the gay parade and the omnipresent public tokens of obeisance to the agenda found in popular culture, popular media and even official communications. Gay sex is no longer regarded as an exceptional, non-normative and private preference, but is mainstreamed into movies and other popular cultural expressions. The gay parade serves to galvanize general public attitudes in favour of it, while other public expressions serve to normalize it. All of these find protection and legitimacy within a human rights discourse that places it on a par with the highest aspirations of justice in society.

Finally, the challenging component refers to the activist side of the movement. This is the LGBT attempt to stifle or silence any challenges to its claim to being a valid and even valued identity within society. By effectively merging and even hijacking the gender agenda and the broader human rights agenda, the LGBT movement has in its possession the tools to fend off any challenge. With these tools, it has managed to advance its cause to dizzy heights. In the 1970s, the movement could count as its greatest achievement, the coming out of the closet of gays and lesbians. Presently, the achievements have shifted very far beyond that. After winning the battle to sanctify gay marriage in Western societies, the new pursuit now seem be gay child adoption. Under cover of its wielding of human rights, the legitimizing of the trade in children is the latest pursuit. Society, being subdued morally, intellectually and legally to the agenda seems to stand willing to negotiate away the rights of the child in the onward gay march. In a court case in the Louisana, USA for example, an adopted child of gay parents expressed the view that she was “was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” If this does not constitute child abuse, then what does? There have been scary reports of the sexual abuse of children by non-biological male gay parents, but even these seem to be insufficient to check the onward march.

4. LGBT within Religious and Islamic Discourse

Western religions have by-and-large succumbed to the LGBT agenda. The Christian church, with its traditional dichotomizing of church and state found it most easy to let the LGBT agenda slide in under broad secular justifications. When the Christian Church decided to take a stand on the LGBT agenda encroaching and invading the Church itself, it found itself outsmarted and overcome. The Church has subsequently had to succumb to the agenda within its own order. The phenomenon of the gay priest and church-hosted gay marriages are the result. The biblical counter-narrative would seem to have been simply conceded in the process.

It is more difficult to achieve the same within Islam. There is common consensus in Islam is that homosexuality to the point of sodomy is condemned in the Quran as the practice of the People of Lot. This has not prevented certain contemporary Muslim gender activists from attempting to sneak the agenda in under cover of the broader gender rights agenda. A thinker like Amina Wadud is in the forefront of this. Other Muslim thinkers such as Tareq Ramadan seem unable and powerless to mount a proper response. Instead, they choose to frame their response within a larger secular pluralistic discourse. The result is that a view is being advanced by Ramadan that homosexuality is not supported in Islam, but is left to the private conscience of the individual. This view represents a cowardly cop-out and act of appeasement. It also reveals a measure of insecurity of a thinker like Ramadan. His approach is perhaps best understood within the context of his own need to defend the broader project of legitimating his own sectional group interest agenda, in his case that of being Muslim in the West.

This brings Muslim scholars to their biggest challenge. Do they trade off the broader gains of the sectional Muslim interest agenda by confronting the LGBT agenda? Only if Islam is seen as a sectional identity can this be the case. When Islamic scholarship is on the other hand redefined as the vanguard of the human project, then this is not possible. When Islamic scholarship defines itself as the defender of all human dignity and emancipation, then this trade-off does not present itself. It therefore is required of Muslim scholarship to redefine their own mission as being key protagonists for broader truth, spirituality and social justice, instead of being defenders and champions of the Muslim identity.


A day or so ago the world experienced its latest display of homofascism with the public disciplining and humiliation of the world renowned boxer from the Phillipines, Manny Pacquiao. Within the context of his Christian religious affiliation and upbringing, he remarked that sex between the same genders was not to be found within the animal world, and that animals therefore found themselves at a higher level than humans who engage in the practice. His views sparked an outrage, which hit global headlines. It also led to his corporate sponsor Nike, withdrawing their sponsorship to the boxer. He was forced to make a public apology. The public humiliation of world figures represents an important element in the greater LGBT agenda as it serves as a lesson for any other person that their livelihood (which often means their life) can be taken away from them should they question the mighty unchallengeable LGBT colossus. The crime here is clearly not his negative views on homosexuality but rather the excessive and overwhelming response to these views.

In 2015, the University of Cape Town SRC, suspended a student leader, Zizipho Pae, as acting President of the SRC for uttering the words “We are institutionalising and normalising sin! May God have mercy on us.” in a Facebook post. The suspension took place after a group of LGBT activists staged a sit-in and pressured the SRC to suspend the student leader. What is telling about this act of homofascism is the recalling of an elected student leader that again expressed a personal sentiment borne from a committed religious belief. Personal conscience or even legitimacy by election is clearly no longer seen as a mitigating circumstances, spelling a clear move to fascism by LGBT. The expulsion also marks the subordination of religious norms and values and the will of students who elected the leader, to the LGBT agenda.

In 2012, the Russian LGBT activist band called “Pussy Riot” invaded the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and proceeded to desecrate the place of worship, including urinating in it. They were arrested later and understandably sentenced to jail for hooliganism. The response in the Western media was telling in this case. It was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the band’s outlandish act of desecration to an institution with a long established tradition in Russia. Their actions fit in with the broader LGBT agenda to mock and to desecrate any established value system in favor of the hedonistic and nihilistic LGBT agenda. The abuse of “freedom of speech” was also very effectively employed here to provide moral cover for their reprehensible actions.

Barbwire.com (retrieved 2016) lists 300 (three hundred) additional examples in the US of homofascism. The examples they site seem to indicate of pattern that ranges from robbing ordinary people of their livelihood by lobbying for their dismissal from work, to outright death threats by the LGBT lobby.


It is time to clear the human rights, social justice and intellectual public central spaces of the LGBT squatters. The war against poverty and inequality needs to be refocused on the masses of people who are suffering homelessness, disease and degradation. The grand social justice narrative must be wrested from the sticky neo-liberal hands of the LGBT lobby movement. I sincerely hope that a party in South Africa like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema will not be lured into diverting its agenda to the agenda of these petit bourgeois intellectual squatters.


Wikipedia. Pussy Riot. (2016) Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

RDMRdm Newswire. (2016) Student leader in hot water over public attack on homosexuality – Sowetan LIVE. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2015/06/30/student-leader-in-hot-water-over-public-attack-on-homosexuality

Chris Murphy. (2016) Manny Pacquiao sparks fury after homophobic remark. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/16/sport/boxing-manny-pacquiao-animals-gay/

Barbwire.com. (Retrieved 2016) acts of homo fascism – Google Search. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

Wadud, Amina. (2016) Women Imams – Amina Wadud. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJo8y-AxZHY

Ramadan, Tariq. (2016) Tariq Ramadan about homosexuality. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaWjxkZB3w

Andy Marso, Jim Mclean. (2016) Topeka Child Abuse Case Raises Questions About Kansas Policy On Gay Adoptions. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://kcur.org/post/topeka-child-abuse-case-raises-questions-about-kansas-policy-gay-adoptions#stream/0

Last, First. (2016) Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Jan 062016


The House Of Saud Is A Western Plot To Control The Middle East

by Sean Adl-Tabatabaiyournewswire.com
January 6

The House of Saud isn’t exactly what it appears to be, as the Saudi Arabia royal family was actually born out of a zionist Western plot to exert control over the Middle East on behalf of the UK and U.S.

The west wished to dominate the Arabian Peninsula, with its vast oil reserves and geopolitical advantages offered by its highly sought after location, and they have done exactly that.

Stateofthenation2012.com reports:

The original conspiracy to dominate the Arabian Peninsula was hatched by a rogue Zionist clan that murdered and killed, pillaged and plundered, bribed and blackmailed its way to the top of the Arabian heap.  That’s not to say the various nomadic tribes that populated the land were in rife competition to rule the Arabian roost.  They were not, which is why the crypto-Zionist imposters were able to execute their scheme to take over the peninsula.

The plot was implemented over many years in the midst of unsuspecting Muslim nomadic tribes whose primary concern was the survival of their roving communities. Only with this historical knowledge can the barbaric ways of the Saudi Arabia of today be properly understood.

It’s as though the whole Middle East is being methodically set up to host the final battle of Armageddon.  Not a day goes by without some major event that can easily evolve into a full-blown World War III scenario.  The ongoing regional war actually began with the unlawful attack on Iraq by the USA and UK post 9/11.  Subsequently the AAA-engineered Arab Spring brought revolution and civil war to virtually every other nation with the purpose of so destabilizing the region that the Greater Israel project would proceed with unimpeded.  The NWO globalist cabal that is implementing the New World Order agenda has a specific schedule which must be adhered to if there is any prospect of success.  Given that the regular Shemitah events did not occur during September and October of 2015 , they are already seriously behind schedule.  (Source: http://themillenniumreport.com)

Sunni versus Shiite

The single most important element of this engineered multi-century global conflict is the never-ending family feud within Islam.  The split between the two largest Islamic denominations — Sunni and Shiite — forms the basis for so much internecine conflict which was then surreptitiously exploited by the West. The Anglo-American power structure recognized early on that Mideast oil would be the primary source of oil to run their economies.  Once that realization was made, both the USA and UK set about the process of securing those supplies by every means possible.

The establishment of the Modern State of Israel was integral to the Anglo-American strategy to exert total command and control over the entire Middle East.  Toward that end Saudi Arabia has been used as the “800 pound gorilla” that effectively controls OPEC, the largest oil cartel on Earth.  Being the recipient of decades of American military hardware and weaponry, the monarchy now possesses a formidable fighting machine as well.

The critical point here is that the present monarchy was set up as a rogue nation that profoundly oppresses it citizens as it represses elements of society that are out of sync with their extremist form of Wahhabism.  Consequently, the unelected government has been consistently empowered to operate as a totalitarian state in every way.  It tolerates no opposition to its autocratic manner of governance and arbitrarily dictates perhaps like no other tyranny on the planet.  In short Saudi Arabia is consistently the worst perpetrator of human, civil, and religious rights violations in the world community of nations.

King Salman: Madman of the House of Saud

Saudi Arabia has made several serious mistakes under the leadership of the year-old regime of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.  This particular monarch is already known for his madness, so many bizarre and crazy things have occurred on his watch.  Many wonder if it is really not his son, the Defense Minister and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, who is really running the show with an iron fist.  In either case Saudi Arabia has left the reservation of civil society by their inhumane actions and reckless inactions over the past 12 months.

So many unacceptable events have occurred in just a year’s time which clearly indicate that Saudi Arabia has quite deliberately cast itself as an extremely violent and unpredictable nation.

This reputation for savagery has been quite meticulously cultivated in order that the populace will not organize a countrywide uprising.  It has also been fastidiously fashioned in order to create a ‘new’ no-nonsense image for the ‘benefit’ of the international community.  Especially by flexing its muscles in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has shown the world that the current regime will not hesitate to commit naked acts of military aggression against civilian populations of foreign countries.  The PR purposes associated with the outright annihilation of Houthi woman and children in Yemen have been particularly shocking and deliberate in this regard.

Fanatical Wahabbism and the Creation of ISIS

However, perhaps the best way to understand the true forces behind the Saudi Arabian dictatorship is to grasp the Wahhabi roots of ISIS terrorism and the extremist Islamic State (IS).  By and large the quasi Sunni branch of fundamentalist Islam known as the Wahhabi are nothing other than trained terrorists who staff the terrorist organizations and armies of ISIL.  As a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with real Islam and were created to bring disrepute to that religion.  The original Daesh are in fact Wahhabi educated and acculturated.  This multi-decade conspiracy to destroy Islam from within was designed in the same world capitals that fabricated and foisted the Modern State of Israel (MSI) on the world–the Vatican, London and Washington.

Wahhabism is the most militant and fraudulent form of fundamentalist Islam in the world today.  In reality, it is not Islam, but a highly distorted variant that was manufactured in the Vatican, London and Washington, D.C. as well as Tel Aviv after Israel was first acknowledged by the United Nations in 1948.  Because the USA and UK played such an integral part in the formation of Wahhabism their clandestine partnership with the Saudi Arabian monarchies has been carefully hidden.  Likewise, until very recently, Israel’s furtive relationship with Saudi Arabia has also been kept quite secret.  In this way the U.S. and U.K., Israel and Saudi Arabia (SA) have been perpetrating a massive and complex deception on the world-at-large.

The end result of this geopolitical stratagem is the creation and maintenance of ISIS terrorism, ISIL armies and the emerging caliphate of Islamic State.  It is only with the material and moral support provided by all four co-conspirators — US, UK, MSI, SA — that the Islamic State is able to exist to any degree of cohesion.  Likewise, only through the direct support of the CIA, MI6, MOSSAD and GID (aka the General Intelligence Directorate in Saudi Arabia*) has ISIS been able to systematically steal Syria’s and Iraq’s oil and then transport it uninhibited to both Turkey and Israel.

Of course, all of these Mideast ‘initiatives’ are only a part of a much greater scheme known as the Greater Israel project.  That project, however, has experienced a major interruption the form of Russia’s entry into the Syrian theater of war.  Not only has that covert conspiracy to significantly enlarge Israel’s borders been fully exposed by the Russian military, it has been effectively halted … for now.   Nevertheless, ISIS & Company continue to sow their seeds of chaos and mayhem throughout the Northern Levant, all to the advantage of Israel and their Anglo-Americn collaborators.

Unjustified and Barbarous Execution of Prominent Shiite Cleric

The previous background is essential in order to correctly understand the most recent inflammatory act of the Saudi Monarchy.  The regime has quite provocatively executed a very prominent Shiite cleric at a time when tensions throughout the Middle East are already extremely high.  Such an offensive state-sponsored assassination could only have been approved by their Anglo-American masters.  Hence, it is clear that this high-profile murder was designed to push the Mideast into a full-scale war scenario.

There was simply no other reason to kill the highly respected Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr except to provoke the Shiite people of Iran and other countries that have large Shiite populations.  Put another way, if there was one individual in Saudi Arabia who should have been protected at all costs, the good Sheikh is that person so revered is he throughout the Arabian peninsula and beyond.  Therefore, there can be no doubt that this was a carefully planned and staged execution carried out in order to inflame the tensions between all Shiites and Sunnis in the region.

Saudi Arabia was chosen to commit this atrocious deed because it is already inoculated to public opinion both within country and internationally.  This is why the regime is publicly castigated for it human rights record and many acts of barbarity.  Sharia law as it is carried out in Saudi Arabia is the most cruel form of any that is administered around the globe.  It is as though they aggressively promote such an image of brutality so that they can always get away with it.  The world has come to expect nothing more form them.

As for the execution of the Shiite Sheikh, that exceedingly provocative act has now succeeded in ramping up tensions between Shiite Iran and the many Sunni-dominated countries within Saudi Arabia’s orbit.  Nations are now, in rapid succession, proclaiming their allegiance to the Saudi cause against Iran, particularly in the wake of the destruction of the Saudi Arabian embassy.  In view of the Saudi invasion of Yemen those lesser states are quite easy to herd into the Wahhabi pen of unwarranted aggression toward Iran and her allies.

All of this provocation and anticipated reaction was quite calculated on the part the Anglo-American Axis(AAA).  Because the AAA has the full military strength of NATO behind it, there is no nation in the Middle East that will stand up to the Saudi aggression.  Both Turkey (a NATO nation) and Saudi Arabia have become key partners in the thorough destruction of Syria for the sake of their participation in the Greater Israel project.  After all, both nations have been led by governments whose key leaders have been hardcore but secret Zionists and well as Dönmeh cryto-Zionists.

2016 and Beyond

2016 will prove to be the greatest year of consequence in the Middle East and beyond.  Only if the BRICS-aligned nations can prevent full-scale war from breaking out will the global community of nations have overcome a major hurdle toward some type of world peace.  It is actually a cessation global conflict which may be achieved, not a true durable peace.  As long as the Anglo-American Axis[2]continues to dominate the world through military aggression and political coercion, false flag terrorism and gunboat diplomacy, financial terrorism and economic sabotage, there can never be a true peace.

Now that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been exposed as agents of the AAA who are working in league with Israel, the political calculus of the Mideast geopolitical chessboard has been completely rearranged.  Fortunately the new board positions has Russia in the “King” position with Iran playing the “Queen”.  The USA has revealed itself to be a state sponsor of ISIS terrorism and aggression.  Great Britain has likewise shown itself to equally duplicitous and untrustworthy.  Former PM Tony Blair was especially transparent in his unlawful quest to wage an illegal war against Iraq.

The same AAA players followed the same basic subversion playbook and war plan in Iraq, Libya and Syria.  And they fully intend to complete the Mideast sweep by eventually going after Iran.  Their only problem is the BRICS Alliance.  Which is precisely why so many BRICS members have become the target of various endeavors to economically and financially, politically and socially destabilize their nations.  Brazil is that last to succumb to outside political and financial meddling pushing the country into a deep recession.


The best thing that can occur in 2016 is that the Western powers will experience an event so unforeseen and preoccupying that they will be forced to withdraw their troops from their hundreds of military bases around the world.  The endless interference by the Anglo-American Axis is so disruptive that only when it is finally terminated will the planet experience any meaningful order.

Conversely, the reign of the once Almighty Dollar must come to an end.  America’s global dominance has hinged on the petrodollar functioning as the world reserve currency.  As each nation leaves the Yankee slave plantation, which was painstakingly established using the IMF and World Bank to turn countries into indentured servants, the AAA loses the dollar-denominated financing necessary to fuel its war machine.

Now that Saudi Arabia (and Turkey) have been revealed as vassal states created to do the bidding the Zio-Anglo-American juggernaut, the world will no longer be deceived by their Mideast posturing.  Israel’s true intentions have also been laid bare for all to see.  This is why the Arab Spring was carried out so quickly and countries fell like flies.  All of them are to be either subsumed in the future Greater Israel or will be compelled to assist with its advancement.

From yournewswire.com

 Posted by on January 6, 2016 at 7:20 am  Comments Off on The House Of Saud Is A Western Plot To Control The Middle East
Jan 012016

Talmudism is as far from Judaism as Salafist is from Islam. The Talmud is the grand achievement of generations of Jewish priests to mentally enslave the Jewish people. Similarly Salafism is a grand achievement of generations of Muslim priests to intimidate and mentally enslave the Muslim peoples. Both of them succeeded in corrupting their host religions to the point of conquering the very hearts of most adherents to those two religions. I wonder how many of you realize that both of these corruptions emanate from the same region in Babylon or what is today known as Iraq. When the Jews were driven out of Palestine by the Romans around 70 AD, they set up shop in Babylon. This marks the period of the exile, when the Talmud started being developed. The Sanhedrin priestly class, who gave Jesus Christ (P) hell, once exiled by Rome, decided to lay the foundation for modern Judaism through its development of the Talmud. A few centuries later, when the followers of Muhammad (P) entered this territory, the Jewish Priests were well-advanced on the path of creating their new religious mind control system.
The Muslim “Salaf” revered by Salafism flourished in the same region, heavily influenced by Jewish Talmudic ideas. A few very obvious Muslim practices, completely alien to the teachings of the Holy Quran, found its way into the law corpus of the Muslims. The practice of stoning the adulterer, the excesses in dietary rules, the killing of the apostate and extreme xenophobia all became equally absorbed within Muslim law. The first Abbasid period of Islam represents a shunning of Salafist extremism and a flourishing of rational thinking. Jewish Talmudism similarly found it hard to flourish under pagan Rome, and even more so under Christian Rome.
The late 11th century sees the opening of the gates of hell for humanity. This period sees the ascent of the Northmen to the English throne, and also the grabbing of the Muslim heartland by Seljuk Salafist Turks. Interestingly, some of the original Seljuks leaders trace their origin to Khazaria. Khazaria had become Talmudic Jewish a century earlier. The current foul cocktail of barbaric greed and religious extremism and chauvinism were implanted and fully virulent in Middle Earth as well as in Europe by the end of the 11th century.
This pungent mix enveloped the Muslim world and laid waste to whatever good was produced by the founders of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries. It made several attempts on the European heartland in the following centuries, but was successfully repelled by Christian Europe. Only in Spain were the Arab Moors able to establish a foothold early on. The seat of Christian Europe was eventually overrun by the barbarians in the 15th century with the fall of Constantinople.
Internal rot and corruption brought down the Ottoman empire by the end of the 19th century. Sadly though, this was too late to prevent a flanking of Europe by the barbaric Normans and the Talmudic Khazars which happened in a century earlier in 1789. The French Revolution marks the point of meeting between Northern European plunderers and Ashkenazi Khazarian Talmudists. When Napoleon opened the gates of the Ghetto’s in Europe he let out the greatest beast ever seen by mankind. The years following the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars are the years when the modern day predatory banking system was perfected. The Talmudic, xenophobic, religious bigots of Khazaria used this period to establish themselves in London and across Europe.
The 19th century is the time of consolidation of the Talmudic bankers in alliance with the Norman gangsters. The British provided the muscle and Talmudic Askenazi’s provided the brains. Power had officially shifted from the Turks to the Northern European Anglo Saxons.
Military prowess would never have been enough to sustain global control. That was where the Talmudist theology of Satan came in handy. In the late 1800s Talmudism was baptised with a new name: Zionism. The control over the world’s currency and gold reserves was used by Zionism to establish a new global Satanic theology of racism, excess, arrogance and greed. Modern day Political Correctness is nothing else but a new form of satanic piety, in line with global satanic designs. The Westerner is a completely duped subject of this satanic empire. Just as being a good Muslim means paying homage to the Salaf, the good Westerner has to pay homage to Israel. The nonsensical claim that millions of Jews died in World War 2 is used as the ultimate guilt extortion to subdue everyone in the West. This notwithstanding the fact that tens of millions of Christian Germans, Russians and Muslims and even Confucianists died in Word War 2.
America is a rabid wolf on Talmudic steroids. The fate of America, if Americans fail to awaken, will be the same as Ottoman Turkey. The rest of the world must decouple itself from Talmudic Satanism view if we are to save this planet. The Jews are not the only upholders of Talmudism. Every Salafist Muslim and every Christian Zionist shares in maintaining the Empire of Satan today.
The call of our time, is the call to abandon Satan, and to revert back to civilisation and human brotherhood and sisterhood.

 Posted by on January 1, 2016 at 4:41 pm  Comments Off on A Link between Talmudism and Western Aggression?
Jan 012016

Those terrible Northmen came from the frozen North to usurp, to destroy and to cause endless pain to the more cultured and civilised world. Their violent heartless raids were characterised by one feature, namely, assuming for themselves the right to dispossess others of their rightful lands and property at whatever cost to the victim. In the Northman’s barbaric mindset, the victim‘s resistance was unjustified and offensive. Few people realize that we in the more civilised world have been facing this northern menace for the past 1200 years.

I hear you asking me where I get the right to claim membership of the “civilised world” so let’s deal with that question quickly. What is civilisation anyway? I hear you ask. Prominent thinkers offer the following as attributes of a civilised person: absence of lying, respecting the property and persons of others, compassion and respect. The typical Northman lacked all of the above and manifested the exact opposite. Disregard for the lives and property of other, deceiving and breaking oaths and agreements, heartless cruelty and extreme chauvinism all undoubtedly place the Northmen in the category of the uncivilised barbarian.

The ancient holy scriptures speak of the terror of uncivilised northern barbarian by the names Gog and Magog. They foretell the supreme challenge they would pose to civilised humanity when they would one day break out of their frozen wilderness. This official breaking out of the wilderness took place in the year 911 when Rollo the Norman Viking was allowed to settle with his people in Normandy. Their settlement of Normandy followed a compromise that took place after endless resistance by the successors of the great European hero king Charlemagne to Northmen atrocities and usurpation. Although the compromise gave them a foothold in heartland Europe it did not stop their wolf-like greed and plunder. 150 Years after gaining Normandy in Europe, William the Conqueror, leader of the Northmen (now called the Normans) also known as The William the Bastard, crossed the English Channel and took control of England. The dynasty he founded to rule over England endures until this very day.

Their spirit of endless war continued from Britain as their new command station, to this day. Initially it was neighbours France, Scotland and Ireland that suffered most at their hands. There were the Scottish wars of independence (remember William Wallace) and the 100-year war with France (remember Joan of Arc). The greatest victory however, that marks the final consolidation of Northman conquest, happened at Waterloo in Belgium in 1815 however. This is the year that the greatest challenge to British hegemony since medieval times, France, was finally defeated. The history of France since 1815 is a sad history of cow-towing to the wishes of Britain. The years from 1815 to 1914 are a period of consolidating Europe under British hegemony.
A threatened shifting of power to Germany was effectively checked in 1919 in a war that was called the Great War. Germany, as the most advanced country on earth, was severely dealt with and reduced to ruins. The Great War (1914 – 1919) also opened up new vistas for Britain as the carriers of the Northman adventurist spirit. 1919 Also marks the destruction of the Ottoman Empire which ruled over the vast heartland of the Arabs, and the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian empire that ruled the vast Eastern European expanses. Hegemony over the entire globe suddenly became a real prospect. The treaties that were signed in the aftermath of the war were aimed at just that. The Sykes-Picot agreement carved up the ex-Ottoman ruled Arab world between European powers. The Treaty of Versailles was aimed at keeping Germany down. The League of Nations, formed under British tutelage consolidated the Anglo-Saxon hegemony. But 1919 also marks the shifting of the seat of military power further west to the United States of America as the illegitimate problem child of British imperialism. The Normans, who became the British, now became simply became known as “The West”.

America showed its mettle when a resurgent Germany was finally put down with its help in a second great war from 1939 to 1945. The outcomes of Word War 2 were favourable but complex to the West. Because Russia’s help was needed in bringing Germany down, they expected something in return. At Yalta, the victors settled the division of the European spoils and the British/Americans grudgingly conceded Eastern Europe to Russia. This concession was to haunt the Western usurper alliance to this day. Russia was a marriage of convenience that soon started to irritate the usurpers. To deal with it, the West very quickly morphed itself into a new alliance, called the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), with which they assumed a new hostile posture towards Russia. Russia could however not be “dealt” with as with Germany or Japan. There was the small problem of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), brought about by the obtaining of nuclear weapons by both sides. The most barbaric single act in human history that was committed in 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan, left the world stunned as to the capacity of the Northmen / British / West to inflict pain and destruction to achieve their goals of conquest and usurpation. It made Russia and others realize that the Western foe was not to be faced scantily prepared. The nuclear arms race between 1945 and 1990 was the result of this realisation.
Russia experienced a changing of the guard in 1990 when the West agitated for regime change in that country. The regime-change succeeded in the short term when a drunkard named Boris Yeltzin assumed the reigns to the delight of the West. Their joy was abruptly ended when a new Napoleon Bonaparte surfaced in the form of Vladimir Putin while Yeltzin drank himself to death. Russian pride was restored under Putin, and its Christian character rediscovered.

A parallel development within the conquered Arab and Muslim worlds was the emergence of movements that sought the destruction of Western Imperialism. The most effective of these was the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which mounted a comprehensive ideological and military response to Western barbarity since 1979. The new Persian leadership of the Islamic resistance differed with other Arab-based responses in their level of shrewdness in confronting Western lies and propaganda. The years from 1979 until present day 2016 see the continuous spreading of influence of Iran throughout the Middle Earth region.

NATO as the modern day incarnation of the dreaded Northmen barbarians now face probably the biggest threat it ever did in all of its infamous centuries of being a menace to the civilised world. The threat is two-fold: 1. Revolt within its own borders. The citizens within the Western Empire have shown increased dissatisfaction with the ruthlessness and the greed of their masters. Economic crises, falling living standards and loss of security resulting from blow-back from foreign invasions all work together to create more discontent with citizens within the empire than ever before, at a scale never seen before. 2. The alliance between Asia, Russia, Middle-Earth and major parts of the South presents a military and economic foe, unmatched in scale throughout history. The presence of nuclear weapons throughout the anti-Imperialist alliance makes a direct full-frontal attack a difficult option. The option, before military confrontation, used by the Western usurpers has therefore been primarily agitation, trouble-stirring, conniving with weak puppet states and attacking weak non-aligned countries.

Will 2016 be the year that sees the collapse of the barbarian West? As we speak, other barbarian elements have acquired equal cruelty and licence to usurp and to inflict pain. The Salafist brand of Islam represents the new beast that was fomented by continuous dehumanisation of Muslims in their own lands. The problem is that Salafism has a pool of almost two billion Muslims to recruit from, over 50 million of which already reside within Western borders. The redemption of the world will lie in the hands of the forces of civilisation. As the West is torn apart by internal revolutions, suppression and Salafist blow-back, it will be left to the BRICKS, the Axis of Islamic Resistance (Iran/Yemen/Lebanon/ Syria/Iraq) joined hopefully by Egypt, Pakistan and non-imperialist America and Europe to restore justice to mankind. Let us pray that the scourge of NATO barbarity is finally ended starting right now.

 Posted by on January 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm  Comments Off on NATO as the Modern Incarnation of the Dreaded Northman
Apr 212014

By Sufyan bin Zubair, courtesy counterpunch.org

“Seek knowledge, even if you have to go all the way to China!”

The above is one of the most well known and oft-quoted statements of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Even though its origins are questionable and not entirely verifiable, it has served as an inspiration for scientific thought and rational ideas in the Islamic world for centuries.

Sadly, the present-day Muslims seem to be detached from that very rational and scientific learning that once was a hallmark of the Islamic world. According to Science Watch, out of the top 20 countries in terms of overall scientific output, Turkey is the only Muslim representative, with a modest rank of 19.

A civilization that had a humble beginning but soon reached the pinnacle of scientific and social learning seems to have come full circle. What exactly has gone wrong?

Pre-Islamic Arabian tribes had their own share of superstitions and lame beliefs: a solar eclipse occurred when a prominent personality died; birds flying in a particular direction signified an impending omen; certain numbers had mystical prowess; and so on. When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) announced his Prophethood to the world, he also declared such beliefs as irrational and incorrect. As a result, with the rise of Islam, superstition took a back-seat and eventually, scientific learning became the way of the world.

Yet, shortly after the decline of the Islamic Golden Age, Muslims went back to the superstitious and irrational lifestyle that they had abandoned in favor of Islamic iconoclasm. The spirit of inquiry was replaced by blind beliefs, and the result can be assessed from the dismal state of contemporary Muslims when it comes to scientific learning.

Can We Really Blame al-Ghazali?

Many scholars have tried to blame al-Ghazali (c. 1058-1111) for this shift towards irrational ideas. It is often mistakenly claimed that al-Ghazali’s “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” had a negative impact on Muslim thought. While it is true that al-Ghazali did criticize contemporary philosophers and their modus operandi, he was not against scientific learning as a whole.

Basically, al-Ghazali was trying to defend Muslim theology from what he felt was the unjustified encroachment of science and philosophy. Although he criticized the methods and works of philosophers and experts such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Ghazali also insisted on the importance of scientific learning and did not refute empirically valid claims. He did criticize the undue importance that was being attached to the works of Aristotle and Plato, but he also accepted the fact that Greek Classics had paved the foundation for further research and learning.

The claim that al-Ghazali was responsible for the scientific and intellectual decline of the Islamic world is plain speculation and a one-dimensional argument. Blaming an individual for the collapse of learning in an entire civilization is outright oversimplification. As such, by incorrectly holding al-Ghazali liable for the downfall of scientific learning in the Islamic world, we fail to see the real causes behind the issue.

The Real Cause?

Towards the later part of the Islamic Golden Age, people started seeking scientific opinion from folks who were not professional scientists. The trend continues even today: when it comes to understanding the Islamic position on affairs such as the Theory of Evolution, most Muslims turn not towards biologists or anthropologists, but instead, they focus on professional debaters and theologians that appear on the television. Similarly, when it comes to questioning the Big Bang Theory, or say even comprehending matters such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, majority of the populace in the Islamic lands seeks answers from clerics that give online and television sermons, or at best, from the average newspaper articles. Consulting experts and/or reading journals of repute is unknown territory.

What makes matters worse is that most (not all) Muslim theologians refuse to acknowledge the limit of their expertise and repeatedly discuss scientific matters that they know little about.

It is pretty common nowadays to see Muslims in mass turn religious figureheads into scientific authority. As a result, it is not surprising that scientific output drops and rational thinking is nowhere to be seen.


It is ironic that al-Ghazali, falsely accused of having imposed religion over science, did warn against using religious discourse in scientific spheres. In fact, al-Ghazali compared religious discourse to medicine (needed for good health and sanity), and scientific learning to food (required for sustenance, but harmful if overdone). All al-Ghazali wanted to say was that excess religion could kill scientific aspirations, whereas excessive science could kill humanitarian traits.

When it comes to scientific theories, there exists no ‘Islamic’ position, no matter what your local cleric might put forth. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite: miracles in The Quran have, time and again, stood the test of science and proved to be in assonance with rational learning. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are just an amalgam of hypothesis and experimental data. Science surely does not have all the answers, but religion does not imply that science should be ignored. Running away from logic and rational inquiry is not a mark of one’s faith. The Universe is indeed vast, and it is only after questioning and unraveling its secrets can one truly acknowledge the Magnificence of The Almighty.

Sufyan bin Uzayr is the author of “Sufism: A Brief History”. He writes for several print and online publications, and regularly blogs about issues of contemporary relevance at Political Periscope (www.politicalperiscope.com). You can also connect with him using Facebook (http://facebook.com/sufyanism) or Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+SufyanbinUzayr?rel=author) or email him at sufyan@politicalperiscope.com

 Posted by on April 21, 2014 at 8:01 am  Comments Off on Muslims’ Turning away from Science
Apr 122014

by Ahmed Mansour, ahl-alquran.comSeptember 11
Written in Arabic by Ahmed Subhy Mansur
Translated by Mohamed dandan


We are not a sect, nor a party, nor a denomination or an organization.

I-We are an Islamic Intellectual trend , seeking to peacefully reform Muslims by resorting to God Almighty as The Judge through the Glorious Quran, complying with His commandment :{ 6: 114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? }

And since we are an intellectual trend, the realm of the internet is medium of interaction among us. We hope someday, we or some of us will be able to meet in a conference in any location worldwide.

II- What unites us, in thought and in Islamic religion, is the sum of our mission or call, which is outlined as follows:

First: The beliefs aspect

1- We believe in Almighty Allah, The Sovereign, alone, with no other deities beside Him.

We do not sanctify nor do we deify any creation, be it angels, messengers, imams, saints, patrons, rabbis or monks. We long to be genuine Muslims : { 6: 162 Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds.}{ 6: 163 He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto Him).}{ 6: 164 Say: Shall I seek another than Allah for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earns only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will tell you that wherein ye differed.}


2-We believe In Almighty Allah, His angels, His messengers, His scriptures, we make no distinction among them, in adherence and in obedience to His command: { 2: 285 The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believes in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers . And they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.}, and hence:

3-We disavow others making preferences among messengers of Allah, because it is His privilege, and His alone :{ 2: 253 Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spoke, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree}{ 17: 55 And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others. }, thus

4 -We believe that the testimony in Islam is but one, which is (There is no god except Allah), a testimony emphasized by God Almighty, the angels and those with knowledge :{ 3: 18 : Allah witnesses that there is no deity except Him, and [so do] the angels and those of knowledge – [that He is] maintaining [creation] in justice. There is no deity except Him, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.) , therefore:

5-We refuse and reject the sanctification and the deification of prophet Mohammad ,peace be upon him (pbuh), elevating him above the rest of the messengers, we refuse performing pilgrimage to the grave attributed to him, we refuse conjoining his name with the name of Allah in prayers, in Azans(call for prayers) and in mosques. We also believe that: saying a prayer for, to or over the prophet, is accomplished by maintaining a connection with him through adherence to the Quran, which was revealed to him. That when we recite the Quran, we are aware that we are reciting the same exact words that he himself , pbuh, used to recite, and by holding on to and subscribing to, what he held on to and subscribed to and strived for, by doing so, we are maintaining a genuine connection with him after his demise. .

6-We believe in the Latter Day according to Quranic description. We believe that Allah alone, is the Owner, the Possessor, the King of that Day , Day of Judgment, Day of Absolute Justice, whereupon no soul shall bear the heavy load of another, whereupon, each and every soul, will stand to defend and fend for itself before the Almighty One.

7 – Quran based Islam have two meanings: One is the innermost belief in and interacting with Almighty God. Here it denotes yielding, submission, obedience and compliance, belief in Him alone with no partners, no progeny, no companion, no associate ,no wife, no patron , no intercessor, He alone is, the Patron, the Intercessor, the Helper, the Supporter, the Defender, the Protector, the One righty deserving of worship. All creations submitted to Him, willingly (as with the believers), or unwillingly,( as with inanimate, like atoms and electrons, heavenly bodies, and creatures instinctively molded to obey).

The second meaning for Islam is, (peace) in dealing and interacting with others. Every peaceful human being is a Muslim as long as he does not commit aggression against others, as long as he does not subdue and subjugate others, as long as he does not coerce others in matters of religion. This peaceful man, we have no business with his belief or his creed, no matter how much we differ with it, since the arbitrator in matters of beliefs is God Almighty, and the time to settle those differences is on the Day of Reckoning. We deal with this peaceful person in kindness, in charitable fashion, on equitable terms, as long as he does not transgress the boundaries against us, does not displace us from our homes and our abode. This is the command from Allah Almighty to us: { 60: 8 Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.}{ 60: 9 Allah forbids you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever makes friends of them – (All) such are wrongdoers.}

We peaceful Muslims live and coexist together in peace, tranquility and in a state of mutual respect in this life, and wait for the final verdict until Judgment Day.

8-Disbelief in God and associating partners with Him are synonymous.

{ 9: 1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.}

{ 9: 2 Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).}

Both of these two terms (Disbelief and Associating partners), have contradicting meanings with Islam:

In dealing with Almighty God, the Arabic word (kafara=disbelieved) means, to cover, to cover the pure natural disposition to submit to God, by deifying other created objects as gods, along with God. Association is to include others, in Devine-ship with Allah, for instance, to include the prophet as a partner in acts of worship, a partner with Allah on Judgment Day, in Mastering the Day and in intercession on that Day. This “Association” is exasperated by adding more of those Imams, Saints, Rabbis, Monks and Sanctified Figures to the procession , thereby the sanctifications and adorations accorded Almighty Allah dwindles compared to those accorded to all others, including , Prophets, Companions, Imams and Saints.

In dealing with people, Disbelief and Associating partners, manifest itself through aggression, inflicting injustice and oppression against them, by exploiting the name of and the religion of Allah. It is behavioral disbelief; one commits crimes and considers it a religious ritual. He randomly murders people calling it Jihad , kills others differing with him in religion or doctrine , and calls it (Penalty of Apostasy ),or according to their sick warped understanding of the principle of (The Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice), rendering fornication and adultery lawful through war captives and (Copulating Jihad). Whoever indulges in or advocates such a behavior, is a disbeliever and an idol worshippers, by his conduct and by advocating and promoting murder, mayhem, fornication and extortion as a religious ritual .

According to the Holy Quran, Muslims should be peaceful people, who do not transgress against others, nor do they start any aggression against anyone, because they know and are well aware that Allah does not love the aggressors :{ 2: 190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.}.Since they realize that aggressors are “disbelievers” through their aggressive conduct, that is why, when others commit aggression against them, they ask of, and pray Allah to help and aid them in repelling and be triumphant against the “disbelieving “aggressors: { 2: 286 and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.}, here the disbelievers are such due to aggressive conduct.

9- We believe in the right of a Muslim woman in marrying Non-Muslim (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc..) as long as he was peaceful in disposition and in conduct. We also believe in the prohibition of marriage to a “behaviorally disbeliever”, those of the ilk of Bin Laden and Al Qerdhawi.

10- According to the Glorious Quran, we believe that people of the book (Christians and Jews), include those who preceded us (in goodness), those who are unjust, unfair, (to their own selves and to others) and those who are moderate, compromising, temperate. The same triple distinction among Muslims and the same triple distinction among humankind at large on the Judgment Day. We believe, among them the people of the book, you will find the unjust, unfair, transgressors and aggressors who exploited God prescribed religion in invading, pillaging, usurping occupying and colonizing others, just like the early Muslims had done. We believe among them, are the frontrunners in doing good, as there are among Muslims, We are required to compete with them in doing what is good for humanity 🙁 5 : 48 ) (To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.) It is a completion in doing good deeds , not in what is harmful, evil, or aggressive according to the Quranic principle:{ 5: 2 but help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression.}

Second: Acts of Worship Aspect:

1-We believe that prayers and the rest of acts of worship were all what the creed of Abraham was commanded to follow, we hold and adhere to it, meaning, we believe in the continuous transmission of prayers form, as long as it does not contradict the Glorious Quran. The very minute segment that contradicts the Quran, known as “Attaheyyat”, (recited at the end of the second Ruk’a, and at the end of each ritual prayer), we believe it was fabricated in books of Ahadiths (sayings attributed to the prophet), has several versions and all agree that it was the invention of some companions, as they claim. We believe that testimony to the oneness of God is the one and only original testimony as related in:

{ 3: 18: Allah witnesses that there is no deity except Him, and [so do] the angels and those of knowledge – [that He is] maintaining [creation] in justice. There is no deity except Him, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.) This verse was ignored and replaced with “Atteheyyat” by those innovators of manmade religion. We pray the five daily prayers, the same timing, the same format; we do not shorten the ritual prayers except in case of fright, in times of war, or fear of expiration of its allotted time.

2 -We believe that acts of worship in Islam are primary and mandatory, yet they are not the goal, rather the means towards that goal, which is godliness, devoutness, piety.:{ 2: 21 O mankind! worship your Lord, Who hath created you and those before you, so that ye may be righteous}. This applies to all other acts of worship, as in performing pilgrimage: { 2: 197 The pilgrimage is (in) the well-known months, and whoever is minded to perform the pilgrimage therein (let him remember that) there is (to be) no lewdness nor abuse nor angry conversation on the pilgrimage. And whatsoever good ye do Allah knows it. So make provision for yourselves (Hereafter); for the best provision is to ward off evil and be righteous. Therefore, keep your duty unto Me, O men of understanding.}As in fasting,: { 2: 183 O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may be righteous}.

Consequently, Paradise is for those righteous, pious, God-fearing who employed their acts of worship to attain that status: {19: 63 Such is the Garden which We give as an inheritance to those of Our servants who were righteous, pious, God-fearing, God-conscious}

Piety is attained by fearing God, not to associate any creation with Him, by superior and higher moral caliber, through just and charitable treatment of others, and through avoiding and abstaining from aggression, transgression and oppression. God-consciousness is the higher noble goal for acts of worship. Without which (the goals), those acts are rendered hypocritical, superficial and void of any genuine meaning. Justifications for extremists, as witnessed by the dominance of man-made religions, where mosques are filled with bearded men, foreheads marked with spots(from prostration),women wearing Hijabs and Niqabs, yet at the same time the widespread and prevalence of infringement, injustice, aggression, lying, cheating, hypocrisy, moral decadence and sexual harassment.

3-We believe that ritual prayers are prescribed upon the believers at precise defined timings: (4: 103: Indeed, the prayer is upon the believers a timed decree.}.It is a prescribed obligation, a debt owed to God Almighty, each due at its own prescribed time. It is like “Zakat”, we pay in lieu for the “age” we spend in this life. So if God Almighty bestows on you 24 hours per day, you are required to pay back about half an hour in prayers, to maintain a connection with Him, elevating your soul to higher levels while communicating with Allah, seeking His forgiveness, anticipating, expecting, requesting, pleading for His mercy and pleasure, sanctifying Him, thanking and praising Him for all His favors upon you, thereby increasing your faith and sense of peace and tranquility. We believe we are responsible, and will be questioned about performing it, in shape and form, the dawn prayers, the noon, the afternoon, the sunset and the early evening prayers. We believe performing “prayers” is not enough; rather we have to establish “prayers”, and be submissive and full of humility in performing it, in compliance with God’s commands. That can be attained by being God-conscious while reciting Al-Fateha, while glorifying and extolling God Almighty, while bowing down, while prostrating, while reciting “Atta-shahud”. By establishing prayers, we mean doing all the things that draw us closer to God, thus achieving the state of “Teqwa”(righteousness ) and keep us away from committing all indecencies and reprehensible acts: ( 29: 45 : Recite that which hath been inspired in thee of the Scripture, and establish worship. Lo! worship preserves from lewdness and iniquity, but verily remembrance of Allah is more important. And Allah knows what ye do.} .

4 -We believe in Zakat in all its aspects, facets, forms and meanings.. Charity, moral purity, integrity, righteousness, purification of the soul, all achieved through Teqwa (righteousness). Purifying and growing wealth is done through acts of charity and spirit of volunteerism.

Socially: carried out by rendering the rights of parents, next of kin, the indignant, the poor, the needy, the orphans, those who ask when in need, and the deprived.

Religiously: by voluntarily striving financially in the cause and way of, and for the sake of God Almighty.

At present, this can be done by striving to show and prove Islam’s innocence and guiltlessness of all accusations and false charges heaped upon it due to extremists and terrorists’ atrocities carried out, supposedly in the name of and in defense of Islam.

5-We believe in fasting during the month of Ramadan, in performing the pilgrimage to the Sacred House of God in Mecca. We disavow, refute and refuse any pilgrimage to any “sacred” tomb, whether attributed to the prophet, or to what is known as “Aal-El Beit=progeny of the prophet through his daughter Fatima”, or the Companions or Imams or Saints. We consider all that as a form of disbelief, a doctrinal disbelief, leading to polytheism.

6-We believe Jihad in Islam is through, self and wealth. To engage in physical Jihad (self), means to defend only, to repel aggression, never to commence aggression, in compliance with God’s decree :{ 2: 190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.}{2: 194 : And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).}

Consequently, we regard all conquests “committed” by the Early Muslims and the companions as contradictory to the teachings of Islam, and the at core of what befell Muslims during “The Major discord”, which caused political fragmentation leading to man-made religions. These same manmade religions are still concealing genuine Islam and an obstacle preventing Muslims from advancement like the rest of the world. What is taking place now is the best indicator.

To do Jihad by words is to rely on the Glorious Quran, conforming His doctrine: { 25: 52 And strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur’an).).This is what the seal of all prophets had done, and that is what we do and will do, grasping the Quran with both hands. { 12: 108 Say: This is my Way: I call on Allah with sure knowledge. I and whosoever follows me. ).

Islam is a peaceful reform mission, prophets and messengers are the greatest reformers and the greatest sincere advisors. Prophet Saleh , pbuh, said it to his people pitifully:{ “O my people! Indeed, I delivered unto you my Sustainer’s message and gave you good advice: but you did not love those who gave [you] good advice.”}. Prophet Shu’eib , pbuh, said to his people of Medyen before they were obliterated:{11:88 : I desire no more than to set things to rights in so far as it lies within my power; but the achievement of my aim depends on God alone. In Him have I placed my trust, and unto Him do I always turn}, then after:

{7:93 And he turned away from them, and said: “O my people! Indeed, I delivered unto you my Sustainer’s message and gave you good advice: how, then, could I mourn for people who have denied the truth?”}.

7-We believe in the “absent, suspended” Islamic divine precepts, like remembrance of God in our actions, reading and contemplating the Quran, for those capable, and the Islamic principle of consultation ( Shurah ) or direct democracy) within any and each Muslim family or society.

Third: The Mission

1- We commit ourselves to the basic principles of the mission as stated in the Glorious Quran, meaning that we vocally and loudly proclaim what is right and conform to it for the sake of Allah, at the same time, turning away and avoiding adversaries:{15:94 Hence, proclaim openly all that thou hast been bidden [to say], and leave alone all those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God}.

We proclaim the whole truth, fearing in doing so none whatsoever, neither do we force our mission upon any one, nor do we force ourselves on anyone, we ask of no one any compensation. We try our hardest to forgive, forget and let go. In addition, we endure others. We respect freedom of religion; we do not see it in conflict with our reform mission, since we respect the others’ rights in advocating their doctrine and belief system as we do. What is important is the implementation of the Quranic principle “There is no coercion in matters of religion”.

2-In proclaiming the Islamic truth, it is not enough to show and demonstrate the greatness of Islam in its value system and legislative approach, in addition we ought to point out the contradictory practices committed by followers of manmade religions. The Idolaters of Quraish believed in Almighty God, performed prayers, performed pilgrimage to Ka’ba, honored and respected the sacred months more than the Muslims of nowadays do. They never committed atrocities as contemporary Muslims have done. The pre-Islamic Ignorance environment of the Arabs before and at the time the Quran was revealed, was by far less than the Ignorance of modern day Muslims. The Quran did not address their positive practices (like belief in God, performing prayers, performing pilgrimage), rather concentrated on doctrinal disbeliefs and associating others with God, on having Saints, Patrons, Protectors they worshipped to bring them closer to God, on performing pilgrimage to Statues and monuments, offering slaughtered sacrifices that Allah prohibited consuming it. He rejected their prayer that did not stop them from indulging in indecencies and reprehensible acts, calling it mere whistling and handclapping. The Quran also concentrated on behavioral misconduct, the widespread of injustice and aggression, continuously referring to them as those who disbelieved those who associated others with Him, the disbelievers, the idolaters, oppressors, tyrants, sinners, trespassers, offenders, lascivious. Moreover, God Almighty uses their belief in Him as an argument against them, to rebuke them on how they consider others as gods and sacred sanctified objects. The terms, disbelief, polytheism, dissolute life, moral depravity and injustice, with all their derivatives are the most frequently used throughout the Quran, indicating the reformatory nature of Islam in diagnosing the ailments and prescribing the remedies. Moreover, the testimony of Islam does not merely require or stress that ( Allah is god), rather , it stresses (there is no god except Allah),meaning it denies deity to all created others and emphasized deity to the only Creator, Allah.

This is the essence of our reformatory mission, to clarify the manifestations of doctrinal and behavioral disbelief, which Muslims fall into, starting with the period of the companions of the Prophet Mohamed until today, in heritage and historically, the past and the present, all having the Glorious Quran as the arbitrator. No matter how harsh words might be, they are peaceful alternatives to what Muslims nowadays fall into of civil wars and mutual destruction and devastation. The difference between our Tekfeer (labeling others with disbelief) and theirs is that our Tekfeer is essentially of attributes, of sayings, of acts, in hope of reforming individuals. Furthermore, we do not enforce our ideas on others; we respect others’ rights in choosing their belief system, and we both wait for the final verdict until Judgment Day. Whereas Tekfeer in manmade religions is associated with murdering the dissident other, coercing him in matter of religion and denying him his natural right in making a choice, meaning either belief in clergy or being put to death.

Fourth : Sunnah and Sharee’a

1-We believe that Islam was perfected with the completion of the Quranic revelation.{5:3 Today have I perfected your religion for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me(Islam) shall be your religion.}, hence, anything being added to the perfect Islam is not from Islam. Accordingly, we believe:

2-The Sunnah means (the way, the path, the method, the example and the rule). It is the Sunnah of Allah, exemplified through the Glorious Quran. It means the methodology and the divine legislation that the prophet was exemplary in its application, and a model to be emulated. He (pbuh) was not the source of religion or legislation, rather the one who delivered the message, nothing more than delivering the message, and he finished the task in full by delivering the Quran, and just the Quran. With the completion of this delivery, Islam as a religion was completed. After his death (pbuh), and the cessation of revelation, whatever has been attributed to him is not part of Islam, rather it is attributed to Muslims, good or bad, all that was performed and done by the companions and other Muslims, have nothing to do with Islam, rather should be attributed to those who performed them. For instance, all those Al-Bukhari narrations and others, have absolutely nothing to do with the messenger (pbuh), it is a fabrication. On the contrary, we deny and reject its attribution to him through ascription and through transmission as we explained in our researches. We believe Ahadiths (narrations) exemplify and depict the era it was coined in, its author and those who transmitted them. We consider it a doctrinal disbelief to attribute those satanic, devilish narrations to the prophet (pbuh). This is exactly what the Quran has foretold about in chapters 6 and 25, among whom Allah (GBTH) has defined and included as enemies of the prophet (pbuh). Truly, whosoever believe in those Ahadiths, indirectly accuses the prophet(pbuh)of not fully delivering the message, meaning he delivered that part known to us as the Quran, and neglected imparting what is known as Sunnah(in their allegation), otherwise it would have been included within the Quran. Therefore, we believe that true love and respect for prophet Mohammad(pbuh)reflects itself through proclaiming his innocence of such lies upon which those manmade religions and their legislations were established, consequently:

3-We believe that Islamic Sharee’a totally contradicts Sunni Sharee’a in particular. This contradiction comprises all aspects, from principles, to fundamentals, to legislative details. At the doctrinal level, (there is no god save Allah), at the moral ethical level and at the level of interacting with others. We have a published book in which we discuss the principles of Islamic Sharee’a, that of justice, the absolute freedom of conscious for every individual, of direct democracy, of peace and tranquility and of mitigations of rules etc, Its contradiction with Sunni Sharee’a, which is based on prohibition, despotism, coercion in religion, injustice, tyranny, stringency, intolerance and shedding of innocent blood. It also deals with the application of the real Islamic Sharee’a. Fifth : The state and politics

1- We essentially believe that Islam calls for Taqwa (God consciousness) at both, the personal and collective levels. Its priorities are not the establishment of a state. That Jihad and physical combat was prescribed to repel aggression and to free people from tyranny, as a last resort, if all peaceful means fail to deter tyrants, especially if this tyranny was based on and practiced by a state founded by and upon manmade religion. We believe that any state maintaining justice, freedom of religion and democracy for its citizenry is in essence an Islamic state. Consequently, the closest expression of what an Islamic State should be, as founded by the seal of all prophets (pbuh), would be America, Canada, European Union and Japan. We believe that the so-Islamic “Mohammadean” states in the Middle East are clergy, manmade religions states, in absolute contradiction to what an Islamic State should be.

2-We believe in complete separation of “church and state”, meaning between religion and politics. Instead of raising sectarian divisive slogans, human rights slogans should be adopted, that all agree to, like justice for all, freedom for all, equality among and for all, and patriotism.

3-We, in our reformatory work, yearn for a (REFORM) that starts legislatively with a genuine constitution. One that establishes a lawful just democratic state, guaranteeing complete individual’s freedom of religion, freedom of political, economic and social activities, guarantees social justice among its people, sponsorship and security for its needy and poor and dignity for the human being. Based on this constitutional reform, all laws, especially the penal code, should be reviewed to remove all obstacles hindering freedom and justice for all, in addition to reforming education, economy and religious institutions.

4-We hope that all those reforms would be implemented with the least amount of sacrifices.

 Posted by on April 12, 2014 at 12:13 pm  Comments Off on Ahlul Quran Views
Mar 272014

The Ancient Myth Exposed

by T.O. Shanavas

A Christian friend asked me once, “Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?” I kept my silence. He continued, “If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?” I told him, “I don’t have an answer to your question at this time.” My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith. Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet’s marriage with Ayesha.

However, such an explanation would be gullible only for those who are naive enough to believe it. But unfortunately, I was not satisfied with the answer.

The Prophet was an exemplary man. All his actions were most virtuous so that we, Muslims, can emulate them. However, most people in our Islamic Center of Toledo, including me, would not think of betrothing our seven years daughter to a fifty-two year-old man. If a parent agrees to such a wedding, most people, if not all, would look down upon the father and the old husband.

In 1923, registrars of marriage in Egyptwere instructed not to register and issue official certificates of marriage for brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years of age. Eight years later, the Law of the Organization and Procedure of Sheriah courts of 1931 consolidated the above provision by not hearing the marriage disputes involving brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years old. (Women in Muslim Family Law, John Esposito, 1982). It shows that even in the Muslim majority country ofEgypt the child marriages are unacceptable.

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And he did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl. The age of Ayesha has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith (traditions of the Prophet) regarding Ayesha’s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn ‘Urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source

Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one fromMedina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people fromIraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living inMedinafor most 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, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq” (Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly” (Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301).

CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while inIraqwere unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable.

CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam:

pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation
610 CE: First revelation
610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam
613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly.
615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia
616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam
620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet
622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina)
623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet

EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal

According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years.

However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period” (Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself.

CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima

According to Ibn Hajar, “Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old… she was five years older that Ayesha” (Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978).

If Ibn Hajar’s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha’s age at marriage would be 12 years.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha’s Age in relation to Asma’s Age

According to Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d: “Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah,Beirut, 1992).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: “She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqribu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif,Lucknow).

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah.

If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age.

Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d, Ayesha’s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen?

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud

A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab karahiyati’l-isti`anah fi’l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: “when we reached Shajarah”. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi’l-nisa’ wa qitalihinna ma`a’lrijal): “Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].” Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr.

It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati’l-khandaq wa hiya’l-ahza’b): “Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.”

Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud

CONCLUSION: Ayesha’s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: “I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)” when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu’l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa’l-sa`atu adha’ wa amarr).

Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet.

CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine.

EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha’s 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 without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word “virgin” in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a “lady” (bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi,Beirut).

CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is “adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.” Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage.

EVIDENCE #8. The Qur’anic Text

All Muslims agree that the Quran is the book of guidance. So, we need to seek the guidance from the Quran to clear the smoke and confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of Ayesha’s age at her marriage. Does the Quran allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age?

There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. There is a verse, however, that guides Muslims in their duty to raise an orphaned child. The Quran’s guidance on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children. The verse states: “And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property…” (Quran, 4:5-6).

In the matter of children who have lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, (c) educate them, and (d) test them for maturity “until the age of marriage” before entrusting them with management of finances.

Here the Quranic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them.

In light of the above verses, no responsible Muslim would hand over financial management to a seven- or nine-year-old immature girl. If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage. Ibn Hambal (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p. 33 and 99) claims that nine-year-old Ayesha was rather more interested in playing with toy-horses than taking up the responsible task of a wife. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that AbuBakr, a great believer among Muslims, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to the 50-year-old Prophet. Equally difficult to imagine is that the Prophet would marry an immature seven-year-old girl.

Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is to educate them. Let us ask the question, “How many of us believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?” The answer is none. Logically, it is an impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage?

AbuBakr was a more judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Quran. He would not have married her to anyone. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to the Prophet, he would have rejected it outright because neither the Prophet nor AbuBakr would violate any clause in the Quran.

CONCLUSION: The marriage of Ayesha at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Quran. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth.

EVIDENCE #9: Consent in Marriage

A women must be consulted and must agree in order to make a marriage valid (Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p. 665). Islamically, credible permission from women is a prerequisite for a marriage to be valid.

By any stretch of the imagination, the permission given by an immature seven-year-old girl cannot be valid authorization for marriage.

It is inconceivable that AbuBakr, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a 50-year-old man.

Similarly, the Prophet would not have accepted the permission given by a girl who, according to the hadith of Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet.

CONCLUSION: The Prophet did not marry a seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of the valid permission clause of the Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, the Prophet married an intellectually and physically mature lady Ayesha.


It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people ofArabiadid not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while inIraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha’s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha’s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha’s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities.

T.O. Shanavas is a physician based in Michigan. This article first appeared in The Minaret in March 1999 and was then published in Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform, an anthology published by Brainbow Press.

 Posted by on March 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm  Comments Off on The Myth of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old
May 302013

by Michel Chossudovsky

12/15/03: (Global Research)

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the “free market reforms” imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people.

The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America’s war machine purports to enlarge America’s economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China’s Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of “free market” system.

via America’s War for Global Domination.

 Posted by on May 30, 2013 at 5:39 pm  Comments Off on America’s War for Global Domination