Go down


Post  Admin on Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:46 am


Islam is intent on world domination and the implementation of Sharia Law, read REALITY.

Article One - Rampaging Islamists by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
September 19, 2012
WT title: "Islamic violence advances Shariah law: Is U.S. ready to accept second-class status?"; includes updates
When Muslims take to the streets in nearly 30 countries to engage in various degrees of anti-Western violence, something important is underway. Reflections on what this might mean:
The Rushdie Rules have gone viral: Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 masterstroke of imposing a death edict on Salman Rushdie has now spread and become the hum-drum response of Islamists to perceived insults. By telling the West what can and cannot be said about Islam, Khomeini sought to impose Islamic law (the Shari'a) on it. The recent round of violence has mostly taken the form of demonstrations and violence against Western buildings (diplomatic, commercial, educational) in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel & the Palestinian Authority, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Sudan, Syria (including the American-backed rebels), Tunisia, Turkey, and Yemen as well as in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. So far, about 30 people have lost their lives. The Iranian and Egyptian governments both want to get their hands on the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muhammad film on YouTube they blame for the violence. Anti-Islamic provocations have proliferated: Rushdie had no idea what he was walking into, as he explains in a book published this week. Others, such as the American soldiers who burned Korans in Afghanistan in early 2012, likewise unwittingly set off Islamist disturbances. But Florida pastor Terry Jones, the group behind Innocence of Muslims, and the French weekly Charlie Hebdo, as well as anti-Islamic groups in Canada and Spain, overtly want to rile Muslims. Thus have Islamists and anti-Islam activists developed a symbiotic relationship in which the one spurs the other. Individuals hold government hostage: When Jones spoke of burning copies of the Koran in 2010, he received calls from no less than the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, the secretaries of defense and state, the attorney general, and the president of the United States, all pleading with him to desist. Last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff picked up the phone to chat with him. Never before could random individuals driver policy like this. French humorist Jean-Jacques Sempé drew a cartoon in 1989 capturing this reversal: as Rushdie is working furiously on his typewriter under the gaze of the fifteen policemen guarding him from Islamists, one Bobby yells into his walkie-talkie, "Close the airports!! He wants to write Volume Two!!!" If Rushdie never wrote a volume two, Jones returns repeatedly into the limelight.
Governments want to clamp down on free speech: More ominous yet than the calls to Jones was the suggestion from the White House to Google, owner of YouTube, that it "review whether [Innocence of Muslims] violates their terms of use." (Google kept it available except in four countries.) While arguments about the need to censor oneself so as not to stir the Islamist beast and jeopardize American lives may sound reasonable, such appeasement only invites more rage, intimidation, and violence.
A growing separation of civilizations: The famous clash of civilizations does not exist; in fact, a separation of civilizations is underway. It takes many forms, from Muslim-only enclaves in the West to matrimony, economics, education, culture, media, entertainment, travel, websites, and even time-keeping. How many tourists, for example, will sun themselves on Tunisian beaches or explore Egyptian antiquities any time soon?
"Obama, we love Osama": That's what a crowd in downtown Sydney, Australia chanted. Meanwhile Afghan, Indian, and Pakistani Islamists burned Barack Obama in effigy. Such hatred of Obama is the more remarkable given Obama's many childhood connections to Islam, his 2007 prediction that his presidency would witness a major improvement in relations with Muslims, his strenuous efforts to win over Muslim opinion on becoming president, and the initially favorable Muslim reaction to him. In fact, his standing has plunged to the point that he is as unpopular or more so than George W. Bush. Minimal impact on U.S. presidential elections: Polls show that voter attitudes toward Obama and Mitt Romney have hardly budged over the past six months, suggesting that Islamists on the rampage will have little impact on the election results.
Western civilization in the balance: Islamist aspirations grow with improved communications and weakened Middle Eastern governments, ultimately posing an existential question for Westerners: Will we maintain our historic civilization against their challenge, or will we accept Muslim dominion and a second-class dhimmi status?
In sum, Islamists want to impose Shari'a, Westerners are divided, and the battle of wills is just getting started.
Mr. Pipes ( is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Article 2 - The Rape of Christopher Stevens
by Raymond Ibrahim
September 17, 2012
By obsessing over the 14-minute YouTube Muhammad video and its maker, the mainstream media ultimately exonerates the inexcusable and murderous response of the Islamic world.
There is only one question: did those who make this movie break any law? No, they did not—and so the matter should end there, and the media should move on. Focusing on those who did not break any American laws as a way to take the focus off those who murdered and initiated an act of war against the United States is not only misleading; it validates and gives Islamic blasphemy laws precedence over American freedoms.
Worse, even if making movies deemed offensive to Muslims was illegal in the U.S., the fact is, these embassy attacks, which "coincidentally" began on September 11, have nothing to do with the movie. On September 10, I wrote an article titled "Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo." The demand that the U.S. release its imprisoned jihadis, including the Blind Sheikh, was behind these threats. There was no mention of "offensive movies." My source, El Fagr, an Arabic website, reported all this on September 8.
In other words, several days before Muslims were angry about this movie they were threatening to burn down the U.S. embassy in Cairo. I had even seen sporadic Arabic reports, from months back, talking about "extremist elements" threatening the embassy. The movie is just a pretext—aided and abetted by the media, not to mention the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton called the video "disgusting and reprehensible," wording which is more befitting those who murdered (and possibly raped, see below) Americans; the U.S. embassy itself apologized for those who "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims"; and the administration asked YouTube to remove the 14 minute trailer.
Thus the U.S. administration validates Islam's blasphemy laws and, once again, aligns itself with America's jihadi enemies.
Seventy-year-old, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put it well, when he suggested that the administration's response to the embassy attacks was akin to a court asking a rape victim for an apology, saying: "It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.'"
Nor is the rape entirely allegorical. According to the Arabic website Tayyar, "the American ambassador in Libya [Christopher Stevens] was sexually raped before being killed by the gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night [Tuesday, September 11], in protestation of a film insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him."
Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found. For example, a report in Arabic media that just appeared discusses how Christian women—identified by wearing crosses around their necks or simply not wearing a hijab—are subject to sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and even threats of rape on the streets of Egypt. This has only "become much more blatant and terrifying [after the embassy attacks]—and has even reached the point of threats of genocide and purging the land of Egypt of infidel Christians," writes one female Christian in Egypt.
Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens—stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported "freedom-fighter," for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.
The al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same sort of men who sexually abused and killed America's ambassador. We were told that the late Libyan dictator was killed because he was an evil oppressor of his people. Why was the American ambassador killed, who had hailed the revolution and was there helping to "build a better Libya"?
These are the questions the media and the Obama administration need to be answering—not obsessing over a second-rate YouTube video and questioning hard-won American freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. They should be explaining why it is that, after four years of appeasing the Islamic world in ways unprecedented, including by helping oust America's longstanding allies like Egypt's Mubarak to empower Islamists, all we have to show for it are dead and violated Americans, stormed embassies, burned U.S. flags, and greater anti-American sentiment than ever before.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
1. Now to know the truth, go to:
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

NEWS ARTICLES DETAILS ISLAM’S PLAN TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS: Empty Suspected Islamic extremists attack Indian student in Germany

Post  Admin on Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:14 am

Suspected Islamic extremists attack Indian student in Germany
Published on Dec 27, 2012
7:29 PM
BERLIN (AP) - Police say an Indian student in Germany has been attacked and injured by suspected Islamic extremists who accosted him and demanded that he convert to Islam.
Police spokesman Frank Piontek said on Thursday that two attackers in the western German city of Bonn severely beat the 24-year-old and then slashed his tongue with a knife.
Police say the attackers walked up to the student in a city street late on Monday and demanded that he convert to Islam - then beat him up after he refused to do so.
The student, whose identity wasn't given in line with German privacy rules, was taken to a hospital for treatment. He was released a day later. [source - retrieved from on 12/28/2012]


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

NEWS ARTICLES DETAILS ISLAM’S PLAN TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS: Empty Islam Wants Freedom Of Religion For Itself, But Does Not Want To Give It To Others As clearly Shown By Islamic Iran Banning Buddhist Items.

Post  Admin on Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:26 pm

Islam Wants Freedom Of Religion For Itself, But Does Not Want To Give It To Others As clearly Shown By Islamic Iran Banning Buddhist Items.

Islam always screams for freedom of religion in non-Muslim countries, but does NOT want to give freedom of religion in countries under its control – THIS IS EVIL HYPOCRASY. Read reality below:
Iran confiscates Buddha statues from shops
By BY NASSER KARIMI | Associated Press – 9 hrs ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Buddha statues have joined Barbie dolls and characters from "The Simpsons" TV cartoon as banned items in the conservative Muslim nation.
Authorities are confiscating Buddha statues from shops in the Iranian capital, Tehran, to stop the promotion of Buddhism in the country, according to a report Sunday in the independent Arman daily.
Iran has long fought against items, such as Barbie toys, to defuse Western influence, but this appears to be the first time that Iranian authorities are showing an opposition to symbols from the East.
The newspaper quoted Saeed Jaberi Ansari, an official for the protection of Iran's cultural heritage, as calling the Buddha statues symbols of "cultural invasion." He said authorities will not permit a specific belief to be promoted through such items. Ansari did not say how many Buddhas had been seized, but that the "cleansing" would continue.
Some Iranians buy Buddha's statues to decorate their homes and cars. Most are made in China and come from Iranian free-trade zones in the Persian Gulf.
"As I understand, none of customers cared about Buddhism, they only bought it for decoration," said Reza Sanaei, a shopkeeper who sells the statues.
A customer, Marjan Arbabi, said she personally did not like the statues. "But my parents have set of five Buddah's statues at their home simply because they think the statues are beautiful," she said.
Under the constitution, Christian and Jewish beliefs as well as Zoroastrianism are recognized beside Islam, the official religion of the country. The law, however, says that, in general, the rights of all non-Muslims should be observed.
Some Islamists do not support production of any statue, since they view it as a way to promote idols.
In 2010, several statues depicted prominent Iranians, disappeared from Tehran city's streets and squares. Their disappearance was blamed on an unnamed group with a strict interpretation of Islam that bans the depiction of the human form in art. (source - retrieved from on 2/17/2013)
Islam Does NOT Believe In Freedom of Conscience – Read The Reality!

Learn the reality, Islam wants to murder anyone who seeks freedom of conscience and is now doing this in Tunisia. However, one should have the right of freedom of conscience, i.e., to belong to any religion of his choice or none at all.

Muslims Slaughter Convert to Christianity in Tunisia
by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
June 4, 2012
Liberal talk show host Tawfiq Okasha recently appeared on "Egypt Today" airing a video of Muslims slicing a young man's head off for the crime of apostasy, in this case, the crime of converting to Christianity and refusing to renounce it. The video—be warned, it is immensely graphic—is embedded here (the actual execution appears from minute 1:13-4:00). For those who prefer not to view it, a summary follows:

A young man appears held down by masked men. His head is pulled back, with a knife to his throat. He does not struggle and appears resigned to his fate. Speaking in Arabic, the background speaker, or "narrator," chants a number of Muslim prayers and supplications, mostly condemning Christianity, which, because of the Trinity, is referred to as a polytheistic faith: "Let Allah be avenged on the polytheist apostate"; "Allah empower your religion, make it victorious against the polytheists"; "Allah, defeat the infidels at the hands of the Muslims"; "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

Then, to cries of "Allahu Akbar!"—or, "God is great!"—the man holding the knife to the apostate's throat begins to slice away, even as the victim appears calmly mouthing a prayer. It takes nearly two minutes of graphic knife-carving to sever the Christian's head, which is then held aloft to more Islamic cries and slogans of victory.

Visibly distraught, Tawfiq Okasha, the host, asked: "Is this Islam? Does Islam call for this? How is Islam related to this matter?...These are the images that are disseminated throughout the electronic media in Europe and America…. Can you imagine?" Then, in reference to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis, whose political influence has grown tremendously, he asked, "How are such people supposed to govern?"

In fact, only the other day a top Egyptian Salafi leader openly stated that no Muslim has the right to apostatize, or leave Islam, based on the canonical hadiths, including Muhammad's command, "Whoever leaves his religion, kill him." Islam's most authoritative legal manuals make crystal clear that apostasy is a capital crime, punishable by death.

The first "righteous caliph," a paragon of Muslim piety and virtue, had tens of thousands of people slaughtered—including by burning, beheading, and crucifixion—simply because they tried to break away from Islam. According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the most authoritative reference work on Islam in the English language, "there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death."

Finally, a word on the "prayers" or supplications to Allah made by the Muslim executioners in the video: these are standard and formulaic. It is not just masked, anonymous butchers who supplicate Allah as they engage in acts of evil; rather, top-ranking Muslim leaders openly invoke such hate-filled prayers.
See here for examples of prominent Muslims supplicating Allah to strike infidels with cancer and disease "till they pray for death and do not receive it," and even formalized prayers in Mecca, blasted on megaphones as Muslims pilgrimage and circumambulate the Ka'ba, supplicating Allah to make the lives of Christians and Jews "hostage to misery; drape them with endless despair, unrelenting pain and unremitting ailment; fill their lives with sorrow and pain and end their lives in humiliation and oppression."

"Is this Islam?" You decide.

Raymond Ibrahim is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Now to know the truth, go to:








Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

NEWS ARTICLES DETAILS ISLAM’S PLAN TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS: Empty This News Speaks For Itself, Islam Does NOT Believe In Freedom Of religion For Others, Only For Itself:

Post  Admin on Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:28 pm

This News Speaks For Itself, Islam Does NOT Believe In Freedom Of religion For Others, Only For Itself:
Death for Preaching Christ in 'Liberated' Libya
by Raymond Ibrahim
February 22, 2013
Four foreign Christians—including one who holds American-Swedish citizenship—were arrested days ago in Libya. According to the Guardian, their crime is arousing "suspicion of being missionaries and distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty."
Apparently the four Christians had "contracted a local printer to produce pamphlets explaining Christianity." Proselytizing to Muslims—that is, preaching to them another religion—was banned even under the late Col. Muammar Gaddafi.
Libyans—strongly supported by U.S. President Obama in the name of "freedom"—got rid of Gaddafi but kept the distinctly anti-freedom law.
Discussing this case, Libyan security official Hussein Bin Hmeid, trying to justify the Islamic ban on free speech, observes: "Proselytizing is forbidden in Libya. We are a 100% Muslim country and this kind of action affects our national security." Indeed, Muslim governments—most notably Iran's—constantly suppress any talk of Christianity, claiming it threatens "our national security."
Such is the tribal mentality of Islam which everywhere seems to declare: If you're not one of us, you must be an enemy trying to subvert our way of life.
Is the flip side of this prevalent mentality also true—that if Muslims are not one of us, they must be trying to subvert our way of life?
Nor should the arrested Christians expect much sympathy from more "moderate" Libyans. According to Benghazi lawyer and "human rights activist" Bilal Bettamer, Christians should not offend Muslims by trying to share their faith: "It is disrespectful. If we had Christianity we could have dialogue, but you can't just spread Christianity. The maximum penalty is the death penalty. It's a dangerous thing to do."
Indeed, like "blasphemy"—whether in the guise of Muhammad cartoons or movies—proselytizing to Muslims is one of the many forms of free speech to be specifically banned by Islamic Sharia. According to Muslim tradition, this ban goes back to the second "righteous" caliph, the 7th century Omar. After conquering a group of Christians, he stipulated any number of humiliating conditions for them to live by, including: "Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims…. Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it."
As Muslims continue turning to Islam—all to Western praise and encouragement—expect the things of Islam to continue returning in big ways.
The Guardian report adds: "Libya, a conservative Muslim country, has no known Christian minority, and churches, the preserve of foreign residents, have seen few of the attacks seen in Egypt and Tunisia, where there have been church burnings."
The Guardian reporter may have wanted to point out that, less than two months ago, on Sunday, December 30, an explosion rocked a Coptic Christian church near the western city of Misrata, in the very place where U.S. backed rebels hold a major checkpoint. The explosion killed two people and wounded two others.
And even though it is true that there are few church attacks in Libya, that is simply because there are few churches to attack in the first place—not because of some Libyan "tolerance" to churches. After all, one never hears of church attacks in Saudi Arabia. Yet that is not because Saudis are "tolerant," but rather because they have nipped the church problem in the bud by not allowing a single church to exist on Saudi soil. Hence, no churches for Muslim mobs to attack, bomb or burn. Conversely, where there is a large Christian population, such as in Nigeria, which is roughly half Christian, Muslims are bombing churches on practically a weekly basis.
Finally, there is the rewriting of history that is foisted by Muslims everywhere, not to mention ignorant Westerners, as exemplified in this report. All of those quoted—including the writer—seem to think that Libya was born a Muslim country. Hence, in the words of Libyan "human rights" activist Bilal Bettamer, "you can't just spread Christianity."
What, then, do we do with real history? The fact is, although Libya is today practically entirely Muslim, it certainly wasn't always so. In fact, before the 7th century Islamic invasions, Libya was predominantly Christian. The fact that Libya's immediate neighbors to the west and east, Algeria and Egypt, were backbones of early Christianity—giving the world giants of theology like St. Augustine and St. Athanasius, to name but a few—certainly suggests that Libya was primarily a Christian nation, excluding some Berber tribes.
Yet Islam came and killed and converted them all to itself. And now, to keep them in line, it will kill any who try to proclaim a different message, especially the message of their conquered forefathers.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Anti-Christianism, Libya | Raymond IbrahimThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. (source - retrieved from on //2013)


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:43 pm

A Wake-Up Call To The REALITY Of The Evil False Religion Of Islam:

Islam since its inception has been a false religion of violence and violence is even enshrouded in the Quran. Many in Islam are good individuals that have been duped by this religion. However, many in this religion are evil and violent individuals just as the religion, itself, is a violent organization since its inception.

To wit, all members of this evil group that believe in non-violence and freedom should get out of her, Now.

FIRST, I shall attempt to define its evil intention of world domination using world history and the Quran.

SECOND, I shall present actual current, 2/27/2013, items from the world news in various areas to show this REALITY is a continuous course of violence.

NOW, here is evidence clearly showing that world domination is the evil goal of this false religion.

Since its inception Islam claims to be a peaceful religion, but in practice it has been anything but peaceful. In fact, it was responsible for among other things, bringing on or being the cause of the Crusades, but trying to throw the blame for them on others. Let's look at the facts, <<<" Throughout history Islam which claims to be a religion of peace has attacked apostate (counterfeit) Christians and has attempted to steal land and people from them, and then cried fowl when they struck back. How ridicules and hypocritical that is for any group; to wit, to initiate blood guilt and then yell when the other group defends itself and strikes back.

For example, Islam yells about the wrongs of the apostate (counterfeit) Christian Crusades that started in 1095 with the First Crusade under the directions of Pope Urban II, and ended with the Ninth Crusade in 1289. Of course, the apostate (counterfeit) Christians committed many atrocities such as their wrong doing against the Jews in Jerusalem by the Franks, one of the groups making up the Crusader forces. However, in reality, Islam was responsible for all that occurred as they lit-the-fuse that caused the crusades to take place with their blood guilty war like ways as we shall see in this article with facts that can be checked by all."[source - Religion of Peace That Loves War:, by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And, <<<" When members of Islam move to Australia, Canada, England, France, Spain, US, Denmark, etc. they want religious freedom, they demand it, but do they want to grant the same basic human right of conscience to others? NO, they definitely do not. This denial is shown to be the case from ancient times. In fact, this denial was actually the 'trigger' for the Crusades that Islam so blames the so called Christians for, but fail to state that they brought the Crusades on themselves by their actions. How so? Let's look at the facts from history." [source - Islam Is Against Freedom of Conscience Yet Wants It For Themselves: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>. And an encyclopedia says, <<<" <<" A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.

Today, many in Islam decry the temporary occupation of Iraq by a coalition that wants nothing better than to leave, but does not see how it can until members of Islam stop killing each other because they belong to different flavors of Islam - until the country is stabilized. Yet, these same members of Islam, many of which have been occupying other's lands for centuries see no wrong in so doing - what a corrupt double standard. For example, they wrongly occupy much of Palestine, but the entire Palestine was given not to the descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael, from whom the Arabs descended, but to the descendants of Abraham's son, Isaac, by none other than the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, himself, as clearly recorded in Numbers 34:1-28, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land of Canaan; (this is the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan with the coasts thereof:) 3 Then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the coast of Edom, and your south border shall be the outmost coast of the salt sea eastward: 4 And your border shall turn from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin: and the going forth thereof shall be from the south to Kadeshbarnea, and shall go on to Hazaraddar, and pass on to Azmon: 5 And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea. 6 And as for the western border, ye shall even have the great sea for a border: this shall be your west border. 7 And this shall be your north border: from the great sea ye shall point out for you mount Hor: 8 From mount Hor ye shall point out your border unto the entrance of Hamath; and the goings forth of the border shall be to Zedad: 9 And the border shall go on to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazarenan: this shall be your north border. 10 And ye shall point out your east border from Hazarenan to Shepham: 11 And the coast shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall descend, and shall reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward: 12 And the border shall go down to Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the salt sea: this shall be your land with the coasts thereof round about. 13 And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which ye shall inherit by lot, which the LORD commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half tribe: 14 For the tribe of the children of Reuben according to the house of their fathers, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to the house of their fathers, have received their inheritance; and half the tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance: 15 The two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance on this side Jordan near Jericho eastward, toward the sunrising. 16 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 17 These are the names of the men which shall divide the land unto you: Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun. 18 And ye shall take one prince of every tribe, to divide the land by inheritance. 19 And the names of the men are these: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 20 And of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud.
21 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon. 22 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Dan, Bukki the son of Jogli. 23 The prince of the children of Joseph, for the tribe of the children of Manasseh, Hanniel the son of Ephod. 24 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Ephraim, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan. 25 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Zebulun, Elizaphan the son of Parnach. 26 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Issachar, Paltiel the son of Azzan. 27 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Asher, Ahihud the son of Shelomi. 28 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Naphtali, Pedahel the son of Ammihud.
29 These are they whom the LORD commanded to divide the inheritance unto the children of Israel in the land of Canaan." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

This shows extreme greed and a lust for violence on the part of many of the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael as they already control over 98% of the middle east, but do not even want the descendants of Abraham's son Isaac to have the less than 2% that was given to them.

Now we shall deal with how Islam was violent from the beginning and really represented Arab imperialism with a religious façade.


First an overview of Arab Imperialism:

As one writer put it, <<<" Muslims from all over the world are feared as terrorists in the Western world. Is it a propaganda or misunderstanding? It is neither. Frankly stated, it is the truth.
Islam has divided humankind into two perpetually hostile groups, i.e. the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The former have the duty to hate their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and countrymen if they practise a different faith. The Muslims must force the infidels to embrace Islam, using any means including murder, rape, loot, arson, deception and treason.
Until a country has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb) and the Muslims are obliged to betray their own motherland through civil and military action. Once it is converted to the Muslim ideology, it ranks as a Land of Peacxe (Dar-us-Salaam) but at a very high cost to one's national pride because then it exists as a spiritual and cultural satellite of Arabia. This is what makes Islam the subtle tool of Arab Imperialism.
Islamic ideology, which is based on intense hatred of the non-Muslims, is beginning to loom as Islamophobia in the West. The recent Osostlander Report on fundamentalism by the European Parliament has recognised this peril. Though it has been suppressed by the majority vote for the time being, its spectre shall rise again and again until the Muslims start respecting the human rights of free speech and action."[source - ISLAM: The Arab Imperialism, by Anwar Shaikh]>>>.

And another historian said, <<<" In the year 620 AD, the prophet sent Khaled-ebn-valid to the Bani Hares tribe to make them become moselms, and emphasized that should they refuse to become moslems, he should make war with them. Khaled (who was famous for his massacres of the tribes of Arabia) reminded the leaders of the Bani Hares tribe to "convert to islam in order to remain alive". The leaders of Bani Hares, fearing the lives of their people, converted to islam, and went with Khaled to see mohammad. Mohammad emphasized to the representatives of the Bani Hares tribe that "if khaled had not written that you have converted to islam, I would have rolled your heads beneath your feet"

source: History of Tabbari [arab historian]
volume 4, pages 1256-1258

The slogans [I dont know the meaning of the first phrase] and "there is no obligation in religion" did not stop the prophet mohammad to summarily behead followers of other religions ("people of the book" [ie, jews]) for not converting to islam, such that in the case of the Bani Quraizeh tribe, after they surrendred following a war [with mohammad's army], it was ordered [by mohammad] that 900 of their men and youth be beheaded, and their property was taken as war booty, their women and children as slaves, and devided among the moslems. (1) Tabbari [arab historian] reminds us that "the prophet ordered that holes [mass graves] be dug in the ground, and "imam" ali and zobeir cut off their heads in mohammad's presense." [see picture below] (2)
In such wars, the moslem arabs did not even refrain from sleaping with [having sex] the married wives of the captured men, but ofcourse this was also permitted in the qoran.(3)

1) Nafaes-ol Fonoon by Shamseddin Mohammad Ameli, page 312; Montakheb-ol Tavarikh by Haj Mohammad Hashem Khorasani, page 54; Parto Eslam by Ahmad Amin, volume 1 page 117; Tarikh Tabbari, by Tabbari, volume 3 pages 1088-1091
2) Tarikhk Tabbari, volume 3 page 1093
3) qoran 4:24 [source - on 5/12/2007 and on 5/12/2007 under auspices of Free Iran Press].

And in a book review by Daniel Pipes of "The Arab Imperialism" By Anwar Shaikh, Sheikh noted that according to the Qur'an", <<<" Building on an earlier study with a similar title, Shaikh portrays Islam as a political movement which has conquered peoples around the world. Born a Muslim in India in 1928 and so fervent in his early faith that he killed three non-Muslim men in the riots of 1947, Shaikh has renounced Islam and become a leading spokesman against it. Shaikh sees Islam as a form of Arab imperialism, one he finds far more enduring than the British variant: if the latter required armies to be maintained, the former does not. Instead, it has become self-perpetuating by virtue of having conquered peoples' minds.

Like many anti-Islamic polemicists, Shaikh dwells on the career of the Prophet Muhammad, searching it out for inconsistencies (his attitude toward freedom of religion before and after reaching power) and unsavoriness (the Islamic portrayal of paradise shows that, in Islam, "sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of life"). Shaikh goes beyond other critiques in finding that the Qur'an portrays Muhammad to be God's superior and even "the only God"; from this he concludes that "Islam is Muhammadanism." The purpose of this religion, he finds, is "invented Islam to glorify Arabia." And the scheme worked, bringing "imperial dignity to the Arabs," subordinating huge numbers of non-Arab converts and their offspring to "Arab cultural hegemony," and making them permanent allies for the Arab cause. In his pungent words, every non-Arab Muslim has "turned into a moth, restless to cremate itself on the flame of Arab imperialism."

Shaikh has lived in Great Britain since 1956; he sees his writings, which have prompted some twenty edicts against his life, as his way to atone for the three murders a half century ago. Unlike Salman Rushdie, he lives openly ("Everyone is aware of my address") and, when asked if he expects to die violently, replies, "I want to die honourably."[source - Daniel Pipes & Middle East Quarterly June 1999; and references, Islam ­ The Arab Imperialism By Anwar Shaikh] >>>. And in another book review of the same boo, Ibn al Rawandi, says, <<<" Shaikh attacks head on the muslim claim that Islam is a universal religion addressed by God to the whole of mankind, constituting the final revelation delivered by the final prophet. Far from this being the case, Shaikh sees Islam as the product of the genius of Muhammad, who masterfully exploited the ancient Middle Eastern notion of prophethood in pursuit of his own and his people's "dominance urge", which sounds very like Nietzsche's Will to Power.
Shaikh begins by pointing out the inherent absurdities in the concept of prophethood. How it in effect puts belief in prophets above belief in God, since the prophet is supposedly God's messenger and mouthpiece, implying that He is incapable of communicating with humans in any other way. The muslim idea that Muhammad is the final prophet, confirming and fulfilling all previous prophets, is seen as Muhammad's masterstroke, putting the kibosh on any change or innovation.

On the basis of the text of the Quran, underwritten by the traditional biography of the Prophet, Shaikh discerns a progress in Muhammad's expression of his prophetic role. In the beginning, when he was politically weak, he claimed to be a mortal and humble servant of Allah, but when he became strong, after his supposed move from Mecca to Medina: "he began changing his tone, until he was able to claim himself to be Allah's Superior". (75) The proof of this is Q.33:56 "Lo! Allah and his angels shower praises on the Prophet (Muhammad). O ye who believe also shower praises on him and salute him with a worthy salutation". Shaikh claims that the word translated "shower praises on him", really means worship and is usually applied to God.

According to Shaikh the arrogance of Muhammad is fully expressed in the arrogance of the religion he invented toward all non­Arabs, especially the Jews. The notorious episode of the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quraiza, in which Muhammad is supposed to have overseen the slaughter of 800 Jewish men, is seen by Shaikh as: "a pathetic model of ethnic cleansing. The Jews suffered this fate when they refused to become Arabs. We cannot find an example of such extreme nationalism so early in history. Yet the muslims believe that Islam does not recognize nationalism. They insist that it is a message of international brotherhood". (103­4) As regards history this is not quite true of course. It was routine in the ancient world that when a city was conquered the men were killed and the women and children sold into slavery. However that may be, Shaikh is undoubtedly right to emphasize the essentially Arab nature of Islam, and how that ethnic identity was imposed on those they conquered." [source - Review of Anwar Shaikh book, "The Arab Imperialism" published by The Principality Publishers, P.O. Box 918, Cardiff CF5 2NL (UK) by Ibn al Rawandi]>>>.

The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569 said, in quoting France's Berber Leader Belkacem Lounes, said, <<<"'There Is No Worse Colonialism Than That of the Pan-Arabist Clan that Wants to Dominate Our People' [Belkacem Lounes, president of the World Amazigh Congress, wrote an open letter to Libyan leader Mu'ammar Qaddafi in response to the latter's March 1 speech in which he denied the existence of a Berber or Amazigh people in North Africa. In his letter, dated April 10, Lounes protested Qaddafi's statements, saying that the 30 million Amazigh living today in North Africa cannot be ignored. He added that the Amazigh had played a central role in the fight against European colonialism, but that since independence they had been oppressed by the "internal colonialism" of pan-Arabism, which he labels an imperialist ideology. Lounes stated that it was archaic to consider diversity a danger, and calls on the North African governments to commit to democracy and human rights.]
"What Worse Offense to Elementary Rights is There Than Denying The Existence Of a People?"
"... I waited until April to respond to your speech, since it is during this month that the Amazigh people celebrates every year... a great moment in its history, known as the 'Tafsut Imazighen' ('Amazigh Spring'). For us, this is a celebration of our memory, of our spirit of resistance to all forms of imperialism, and of our love of liberty...
"The people of whom you spoke [in your speech] are women, men, and children who speak their Amazigh language daily. They are women, men, and children who live every day their Amazigh identity, which your words injured. What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people?..."
"It is Difficult to Imagine That You Are Unaware of... 30 Million Amazigh Speakers" In North Africa
"You claim that Amazigh civilization disappeared due to 'a century of drought in North Africa'... It is difficult to imagine that you are unaware of the existence of 30 million Amazigh-speakers living today in all of the countries of Tamazgha [i.e. North Africa]...
"You let it be understood that the Amazigh are supposedly an invention of colonialism! What colonialism is capable of creating a people ex nihilo, with its language and traditions that go back several thousand years? How could colonialism have done this - given that when the first foreigner arrived on North African soil, he found that the Amazigh had already been there for a long time?...
"How to explain these contradictions and the brutal return to this desire to negate a tangible history and reality? You even denied the evidence, when you assured us that the Amazigh problem did not exist in Libya. But... the Libyan Amazigh, like Amazigh elsewhere, face ostracism, exclusion, and discrimination of all kinds..."
"Thinking That Diversity Is a Danger is an Archaic and Totalitarian Idea"
"You say that 'Libya is for the Libyans' and that you will not accept anyone's saying that they have this identity or that identity.
"So be it - but then [you] must immediately suppress any reference to Arab identity in all of the country's legislative texts, as well as in the names of political, economic, and cultural institutions, starting with the Arab Libyan Republic, Libyan Arab Airlines, the Union of the Arab Maghreb, etc. Then we will be entirely [favorably] disposed to speak of a 'Libyan Libya,' with its history, languages, and cultures. But if your conception of Libya is one of an exclusively Arab country, then for us, the fight for our identity continues...
"You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts their identity will be considered a traitor in the service of colonialism... Thinking that diversity is a danger is an archaic and totalitarian idea that is contrary to all of the principles of universal rights.
"We Are a People... Determined To Live Free"
"In addition, I see it as my obligation to repeat here what I told you [face to face]: We are a people and we are determined to live free, whatever it costs us. We are generally peaceful and hospitable. Whoever offers us his hand, we take him into our arms. But whoever tries to keep us from living in dignity, we will fight him with all legitimate means." [source - The MEMRI - The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1569]>>>.
Imperialistic from the beginning:
The start of imperialism was with the plundering of a camel caravan as described, <<<" A general mistake that leads to a fallacious view of facts is the presumption that Badr was the first battle fought against the infidels. As a matter of fact several engagements had actually preceded it. 'Urwa Ibn Zubair wrote a letter to 'Abd al-Malik, the opening sentence of which was : "'Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb was coming from Syria with seventy riders all of whom were Quraish." This was reported to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Copmpanions. Hostitlities had laready broken out between the two partiies, and a few persons from the other party including Ibn Hadrami had been slain and some taken prisoners ..... And this had been the event that had led to war between the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Quraish. This had also been the first occasion when losses were mutually inflicted ; and this encounter had taken place before Abu Sufyan departed for Syria."
The best way to arrive at the truth is to see what the other side had to say. Such evidence is rarely found, but fortunately, it is available in this case. Hakim Ibn Hizam (a nephew of Khadija the wife of the propeht), who was still an unbeliever had come with the Quraish army. He was five years older than the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and had been friendly to him in the pre-ministry days and continued to be so even when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had entered upon his mission. However he did not embrace Islam till the conquest of Mecca. Ibn Hakim was a Quraish dignitary, held the office of Rifada, and owned and manged Dar al-Nadwa. He lived till the days of the caliph Marwan Ibn Hakam. Once he went to see Marwan, who received him with great honour. Marwan left his royal seat, sat by his side and asked him to relate the events of Badr. Having described te preliminary datails, he said, " When the Quraish had encamped, I went to 'Utba, and said to him, 'O' father of Walid, won't you like to win a life-long fame ?' 'How is it possible ?' asked 'Utba, and I answered, 'You see, the Quraish demand from Muhammad nothing more than blood for the blood of Hadrami, and he was your ally. Why don't you pay his blood-money yourself and let all your people march back home-ward. 'Utba like this proposal, but Abu Jahl did not consent to it. Abu Jahl called 'Amir Hadrami, the brother of the deceased Hadrami, and said that he should stand out and invoke the aid of the nation, for he had his chance of vengenace close at hand. According to Arab custom, 'Amir Hadrami cast off his clothes and cried, 'Oh 'Amr Hadrami, 'Amr Hadrami, Oh 'Amir Hadrami !"
The first man who came into the battle-field was this Amir Hadrami.
Hakim Ibn Hizam and 'Amir Hadrami wee both non-believers, when Badr was fought. 'Utba and Abu Jahl, the leading chiefs died infidels. When persons of consequence, such as these, regarded the battle of Badr as a revenge for Hadrami's blood, we need not care if others, born hundreds of years after the battle, believed that it had been the outcome of an intended plunder of the caravan." [source - This is a quote from an extract of the Second Volume of English Translation of Sirat-un-Nabi originally written in Urdu by the late 'Allama Shibli Nu'mani, a well-known Muslim historian who requires no commendation.]>>>.
Next, Islam stole Syria from its owner, the Roman Empire of the East/Byzantine Empire, and here is a partial account of this wrongful action, <<<" In the face of the Muslim expansion, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius gathered a large army which met the Muslim army at the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on 20 August 636. It was a crushing victory which gave Syria to the Muslims... A description of the battle. Heraclius gathered large bodies of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Armenians numbering about 200,000. This army he put under the command of one of his choice men and sent as a vanguard Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham al-Ghassani at the bead of the "naturalized" Arabs [musta'ribah] of Syria of the tribes of Lakhm, Judham and others, resolving to fight the Moslems so that be might either win or withdraw to the land of the Greeks and live in Constantinople. The Muslims gathered together and the Greek army marched against them. The battle they fought at al-Yarmuk ,was of the fiercest and bloodiest kind. Al-Yarmuk [Hieromax] is a river. In this battle 24,000 Moslems took part. The Greeks and their followers in this battle tied themselves to each other by chains, so that no one might set his hope on flight. By Allah's help, some 70,000 of them were put to death, and their remnants took to flight, reaching as far as Palestine, Antioch, Aleppo, Mesopotamia and Armenia. In the battle of al-Yarmuk certain Moslem women took part and fought violently. Among them was Hind, daughter of 'Utbah and mother of Mu'awivah ibn-abi-Sufyan, who repeatedly exclaimed, "Cut the arms of these 'uncircumcised' , with your swords!" Her husband abu-Sufvan had come to Syria as a volunteer desiring to see his sons, and so he brought his wife with him. He then returned to al-Madinah where he died, year 31, at the age of 88. Others say he died in Syria. When the news of his death was carried to his daughter, umm-Habibah, she waited until the third day on which she ordered some yellow paint and covered with it her arms and face saving, "I would not have done that, had I not heard the Prophet say, 'A woman should not be in mourning for more than three days over anyone except her husband."' It is stated that she did likewise when she received the news of her brother Yazid's death. But Allah knows best." [source - Medieval Sourcebook: Al-Baladhuri: The Battle Of The Yarmuk (636) and After by Paul Halsall Jan 1996]>>>. As we can see, right from the beginning, Islam was greedy for the lands of others and sought to occupy them.
In fact, <<<" Futuh is an Arabic word with the literal meaning of "openings". When appearing in classical Islamic literature it signifies the early Arab-Muslim conquests which facilitated the spread of Islam and Islamic civilization.
As is clear from the literal meaning of the word, futuh is a term with a strong ideological bias in favor of the conquests it signifies, implying their general beneficence and legitimacy. Here is Lewis on the ideology of futuh within classic Islamic thought:
These were not seen as conquests in the vulgar sense of territorial acquisitions, but as the overthrow of impious regimes and illegitimate hierarchies, and the "opening" of their peoples to the new revelation and dispensation... The use of the root fth is thus not unlike the twentieth century use of the verb "liberate", and is indeed sometimes replaced by the latter verb (harrara) in modern Arabic writing on early Islamic history. The Arabic verb ghalaba, "conquer", with its connotation of overwhelming by means of superior force, is sometimes used in early accounts of the Muslim conquests, but only in the context of actual military operations...
Underlying this usage, clearly, is a concept of the essential rightfulness or legitimacy of the Muslim advance and the subsequent illegitimacy of Muslim retreat before infidel conquest... The advance of Muslim power is thus an opening or a liberation, to give free scope to this divinely implanted propensity.
The Political Language of Islam, pp. 93-94
Many histories from the classical period of Islamic civilization dealing with the early conquests have futuh in their title and are considered to form their own genre of literature, called futuh reports. Like many other histories from the early period, the futuh reports contain a mixture of genres and material, with some clearly of an administrative, religio-legal, philosophical, or edificatory nature. For example, a common feature of the genre is an account of the opposing ambassador's first impression of the Arab army in which he remarks favorably upon the primitive virtues of these early Muslim warriors, thus implicitly criticizing the luxury and over-refinement of the author's own time.
The following is a partial list of these histories:
* Futuh Misr (Conquests of Egypt) by Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam
* Futuh al-Sham (Conquests of Syria) by al-Azdi
* Futuh al-Iraq (Conquests of Iraq) by al-Waqidi
* Futuh al-Habasa (Conquests of Abyssinia) by Sihab ad-Din Admad ibn Abd-al-Qadir
* Futuh al-Buldan (Conquests of the Lands) by Abu Al-Abbas Ahmad Bin Jab Al-Baladhuri
The impact of the futuh conquests was immense, not least of all on the conquerors themselves, who incorporated many features of the advanced cultures they absorbed into what eventually became classic Islamic civilization.
Among the conquered peoples, the futuh invasions resulted in two related, though not identical, social upheavals: Islamization and Arabization. The former occurred as Islam became a society's regnant religio-political framework. The latter occurred as Arab customs and the Arab language became widely adopted by a population. Though the two developments often occurred in tandem, the expression of one did not necessarily mean the expression of the other. Many Middle Eastern Christians, for example were Arabized but never Islamicized, while the Persians were Islamicized but did not Arabize.
Of the two upheavals, Islamization had the greater impact on social and cultural identity. In all cases Islamization led to a people's near total rejection of their pagan, pre-Islamic past, such that their ancestral achievements and heritage were either forgotten or actively denigrated. When in the 19th Century European Orientalists began recovering this past, their findings were at first ignored by the Muslim residents of the Near East:
The discovery... of the ancient past was a non-Middle Eastern enterprise and achievement, and for a long time it had no impact on the peoples of the Islamic Middle East, who remained uninterested in their own pagan past. For them, significant history began with the advent of Islam. That was their own, their true history, the history that mattered. What came before was an age of ignorance, of no value with no lesson to teach.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 68
Though this alienation may be partially explained by the Arab cultural imperialism implicit in Islamization (as exemplified in the adoption of the Arabic script, for example), there is a more direct theological rationale for this, which is the Islamic concept of jahiliyyah, or state of ignorance and barbarity which supposedly prevailed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Readily applied by the first Islamicized peoples to their own pagan pasts, it led them to view these epochs as times of rampant impiety, ignorance, and injustice from which little of value could be gleaned.
Thus one trope of converted Muslims' perception of their own history is the depiction of the pre-Islamic political order as one of rampant exploitation and tyranny, with rulers ordering society according to malign whim rather than in humble subordinance to God's beneficent law for mankind:
Until the findings of Egyptology became known to them, all that most Egyptians knew about Pharaoh was what they learned from the Qur'an, and the image of Pharaoh in the Qur'an is much the same as in the Old Testament. For Muslims as for Christians and Jews, Pharaoh was the archetypal pagan tyrant and oppressor in which the heroes are the Banuh Isra'il, the children of Israel.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 77
And in Islamic Persia, "Chosroes" became as strong a by-word for tyrannical pagan kingship as "Pharaoh" (though ironically the pagan destroyer of the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, was lionized thanks to an accident of Qur'anic textual sources).
Such hostile depictions of the pre-Islamic political order are a necessary complement to the ideology of futuh: in order for the Muslim conquests to be seen as liberatory, the social orders which they replaced had to be depicted as negatively as possible.
With the rejection of the pre-Islamic political order came the rejection of its cultural legacy as well, often expressed by the iconoclastic destruction of its monumental remains as in the recent demolition of the Buddhas of Bamyan. In Egypt, for example, the missing nose of the Great Sphinx of Giza was broken off by a fanatic Sufi when he saw the local farmers making offerings to the Sphinx. And in Iran:
...the ancient past had been forgotten and to a greater extent obliterated. In Persepolis, the ancient Persian capital, the Muslim conquerors had hacked away the faces of the Medes and Persians depicted in the friezes, seeing in them an expression of pagan idolatry. Only the most recent pre-Islamic history... was known at all, and that in a sketchy form, and from Arabic sources. The more ancient history of Iran was forgotten, and even the name of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian state, was unknown.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 71
The popular dissemination of Orientalist discoveries lead to a revision of these attitudes, however, and at least a partial reassertion of pre-Islamic identities. In Egypt, the works of native scholars such as Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi led to renewed interest in the Pharaonic past and helped give rise to Egyptian national identity movements such as Pharaonism. Though initially derided by other Arabs as tafar'un (meaning lapsing into pharaonism), the Egyptian movements were in time emulated elsewhere:
This movement in Egypt was first opposed, condemned, even derided in other Arabic speaking countries. It was seen as something artificial, as a parochial attempt to create a little Egypt within the greater Arab or Islamic brotherhood. It was denounced by pan-Arabists as separatist, by religious people as neo-pagan, and by both as divisive. Nevertheless the example of Egypt had an impact in other Middle Eastern lands.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, pp. 69-70
The acceptance of classical Islam's interpretation of the futuh conquests by the Islamicized/Arabized peoples of the Near East and beyond varies.
It has been least contentious among the Arab countries of Asia, where identity with the original Arab conquerors is strongest. In modern Arab historiography there has been a trend (in part due to the influence of Western-style nationalism), to portray the earliest conquests as liberations of Arabs (or proto-Arabs) from Sassanid/Byzantine imperial domination:
Most Arabs today are Arabized descendants of the inhabitants of pre-conquest Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, but any suggestion that Islamic culture is an Arabized development of what prevailed in those pre-conquest lands deeply offends them.
Lapidus, The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World (ISBN 0-521-66993-6), p. 24
In North Africa, a reassertion of ethnic and linguistic identity among Berbers called Berberism has recently developed.
Despite a rich pre-Islamic political and cultural heritage, attempts at a reassertion of national identity in Iran have often met with strong resistance:
In 1971, when the Shah of Iran held a great celebration in Persepolis to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the foundation of the Persian monarchy by Cyrus the Great, he was vehemently attacked on Islamic religious grounds. Exalting the monarchy was bad enough, but far worse was the proclamation of a common identity with the Zoroastrian past, and a consequent redefinition of the basis of allegiance. For the shah's religious critics, the identity of the Iranians was defined by Islam, and their brothers were Muslims in other countries, not their own unbelieving and misguided ancestors.
The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, p. 75
With the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, traditional notions of identity returned to Iran, as can be seen by the unabashed embrace of the classic futuh interpretation of Persian history in the propaganda of the Iran-Iraq War:
The Iraqis, on their side, call the Iranians Furs, a somewhat derogatory term in medieval times, with a suggestion that the Persians were the heirs of the Zoroastrians defeated at the battle of Qadisiyya in A.D. 637. This battle, which shattered the military power of the Iranian emperors and led to the incorporation of all their lands and peoples in the Muslim Arab Empire, is claimed with pride by both sides. For the Iraqis, it was a victory of Arabs over Persians... For the soldiers of the Islamic Republic, it was victory of Muslims over heathens, and a blessed beginning of the Islamization of the peoples of Iran.
The Political Language of Islam, p. 121
Acceptance in Pakistan of futuh "salvation history" can be seen in current expressions of alienation from both the political as well as cultural legacies of its pre-Islamic past:
In September 1979, on Defense of Pakistan Day, there was a long article in the Pakistan Times on Bin Qasim as a strategist. The assessment was military, neutral, fair to the soldiers of both sides. It drew a rebuke from the chairman of the National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research.
"Employment of appropriate phraseology is necessary when one is projecting the image of a hero. Expressions such as 'invader' and 'defenders' and 'the Indian Army' fighting bravely but not being quick enough to 'fall upon the withdrawing enemy' loom large in the article. 'Had Raja Dahar defended the Indus heroically and stopped Qasim from crossing it, the history of the subcontinent might have been quite different.' One fails to understand whether the writer is applauding the victory of the hero or lamenting the defeat of his rival?"
Among the Believers, p. 141

The excavated city of Mohenjo-Daro... is one of the archaeological glories of Pakistan and the world. The excavations are now being damaged by waterlogging and salinity, and appeals for money have been made to world organizations. A feature letter in the Dawn offered its own ideas for the site. Verses from the Koran, the writer said, should be engraved and set up in Mohenjo-Daro in "appropriate places": "Say (unto them, O Mohammed): Travel in the land and see the nature of the sequel for the guilty ... Say (O Mohammed, to the disbelievers): Travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for those who were before you. Most of them were idolators."
Among the Believers, pp. 141-142
An interesting cultural adaptation found mainly here, though, is the widespread claim of descent from the Arab (or Moghul) conquerors:
"Islam doesn't show on my face. We have nearly all, subcontinental Muslims, invented Arab ancestors for ourselves. Most of us are sayeds, descendants of Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law Ali... Everybody has got an ancestor who came from Arabia or Central Asia."
Beyond Belief, p. 307

The last Nawab of Bahawalpur was fanatical about the ancestry he claimed. In Bahawalpur and Pakistan and the subcontinent he was an Arab of the Abassids and a conqueror, a man drawing his wealth from the country, but not part of it. He wore the fez to make the point.
Beyond Belief, p. 331 " [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as of 5/12/2007]>>>.

As can be seen, Islamic Imperialism worked as follows, wrongfully capture a people and subgate them, then brain wash them, just like a cancer conquers the human body. Also, they continue to occupy and do not want to give back what rightly belongs to others, but seek to keep the occupied brain washed.

In fact, they tried this wicked approach on Spain, but the subjeducated people fought back and eventually recovered their land and nation. Let's look into this briefly, <<<"Many like to place the blame on others for what results from their own willful acts. With Islam this has been the case from at least 711 AD forward. In 711 AD they attacked Spain and through the years overran most of the country, but when they got kicked out finally about seven hundred years after they started their illegal occupation they screamed about all the wonderful things they did for those they subjected; what utter nonsense." [source - The Sponsors of Unprovoked Attacks and Criminal Acts Responsible For All That Occurs: by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>.

So as we can see, Islam from its very beginnings was out to greedily take that which belonged to others, to subjugate the enslaved, and to brain wash them. This evil actions succeeded in most cases except for Spain, and the occupation of the subjugated nations continues until the present.


As stated in the last topic, occupation of the subjugated nations continues until the present as the aim of Islamic Imperialism. Take what is now occurring in Thailand as an example, <<<" The premier blamed the assault on the Mujahideen Islam Pattani, one of several Muslim separatist groups accused of killing about 50 police officers over the previous three years. The banned Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO) had boasted in May 2003 that Thai security forces were "falling like leaves" as Muslims fought to free the south from Bangkok's rule... In years past, the Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand and the Communist Party of Thailand dabbled in drug trafficking to raise funds to support their political and operational objectives. As of 2000 there was little if any data linking indigenous terrorists to drug trafficking in Southeast Asia. The Communist Party had not been a viable organization in Thailand for years, and the Muslim separatist movement had fractured into a number of organizations known more for their banditry than their political activities. Drug trafficking did not, therefore, contribute to any significant terrorism on the part of these organizations. In fact, there were no credible reports of any terrorist groups either being based in or conducting terrorist activity within the Kingdom of Thailand. ... During 2000 authorities responded with military force and legal action to separatist activity in the south. In February, security forces dealt a severe blow to the New Pattani United Liberation Organization -- a Muslim separatist group -- when they killed its leader Saarli Taloh-Meyaw. Authorities claim that he was responsible for 90 percent of the terrorist activities in Narathiwat, a southern Thai province. In April, police arrested the deputy leader of the outlawed Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) -- a Southern separatist group -- in Pattani. The case was still pending before the court at year's end. Authorities suspected Muslim separatists conducted several small-scale attacks on public schools, a government-run clinic, and a police station in the south. ... Southern Thailand's terrorist incidents in 2002raised questions about potential Al Qaeda Network involvement. These attacks were the handiwork of a small number of highly organized, experienced insurgents from 4-8 Muslim groups, each numbering no more than 30 people, that have embarked on a concerted and well-planned campaign of ambushes, murders, weapons thefts and criminal extortion since the Thaksin government transferred security responsibilities from the Army to the police last summer. Although some of their activities may have been inspired by the Thai Government's assistance to the US war on terror, Southern Thailand's stability has always been a direct reflection of Bangkok's degree of control. These groups had not increased their capability to conduct a sustained terrorist campaign and the current threat from Thai Muslim separatist terrorist groups in the region still remains limited despite the recently increased violence attributed to them...On 10 June 2003 Thai police broke up a cell of the Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiyah and foiled a plot to bomb embassies in the country. Three Thai men alleged to be members of Jemaah Islamiyah, the group suspected in last year's bombing on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, were arrested in raids on their homes in the Muslim.dominated Narathiwat province, 710 miles south of Bangkok. The development followed the May 16 arrest in Bangkok of Arifin bin Ali, 42, a Singaporean alleged to be a senior member of the terror group.
Thai Muslim separatists may have called on support from the Malaysian Kampulan Mujahedin. The Malaysian group has links to the regional terror organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, which has ties to the al-Qaida terror network. There was talk decades ago about creating a Muslim state in parts of Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia, but this has largely disappeared. Some religious leaders in the past, about 60- or 80-years ago, they had some idea to separate southern Thailand as an independent state. Even some, they want to join with Selantan state, Terranganu, and Cambodia and become an Islamic state." [source -, on 5/12/2007]>>>. And this is just one example of modern day Islamic activity that shows it is no different now than when Islam was founded in the Seventh Century. To wit, as stated previously, Islam from its very beginnings was out to greedily take that which belonged to others, to subjugate the enslaved, and to brain wash them. This evil actions succeeded in most cases except for Spain, and the occupation of the subjugated nations continues until the present.
Of course the example of Thailand is just one small example. Let's look at things briefly elsewhere in the world. One newspaper in Australia, The Weekend Australian, highlighted the world condition and showed where most of the world's violence was emanating from as follows: <<<"Did you know that 90-95% of the conflicts in the world today are Muslims fighting non-muslims or each other? " [source - The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005 AD]>>>.
Let's look at some more facts, <<<"Islam is intolerant of other religions, so much so that Christians in Nigeria, Sudan and middle eastern countries are killed for practicing their religion. Muslims are also responsible for burning down their churches. Sydney has recently seen an attack on four churches for similar reasons. (December 16, 2005) How can we tolerate such intolerance?">>.[7]

Says it all, so clearly Islam should be redefined as something other than a religion. So it is very necessary that this greed and hate be addressed. Remember, Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (AV).

Let's consider the facts as continually revealed in the world news that shows if any thing that the newspaper editor may have been a little low when he said 95 percent of the violence in the world was caused by Muslims. Here are some instances of terrorism by members of Islam:[7]

(1) World Trade Center - 9/11 - unprovoked attack and mass murder by Muslims.[8]
(2) London Subway Bombing by Muslims [9]
(3) Continued mosque bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[10]
(4) Suicide bombings in Israel by Muslims.[11]
(5) Suicide bombing of a wedding reception in Jordan by Muslims.[12]
(6) Daily roadside bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[13]
(7) Train bombings in Spain my Muslims.[14]
(Cool Riots and car burnings and murders in France by Muslims.[15]
(9) Suicide bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[16]
(10) Car and truck bombings in Iraq by Muslims.[17]
(11) Unprovoked murder of 8 Israelis and the kidnapping of 2 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Lebanon and Israel by Muslims.[18]
(12) Unprovoked murder of 2 Israelis and the kidnapping of 1 by Muslims to provoke turmoil and violence in Gaza by Muslims.[19]
(13) Bombing of restaurants and cafes in Bali, Indonesia by Muslims.[20]
(14) Bombing of a trains in India by Muslims.[21]
(15) Take over of a grammar school in Russia resulting in the deaths of many students by Muslims.[22]
(16) Attempted shoebombing of a plain by a Muslim.[23]
(17) Conspiracy to bomb about 10 planes going from UK by Muslims.[24]
(18) Attempted murder of several Indian politicians in Kashmir by Muslims.[25]
(19) Many violent acts by Muslims in Afghanistan.[26]
(20) Murder of a girl by Shiite Muslims in Iran.[27]
(21) Conspiracy to bomb trains in Germany - as previously posted for you.[28]
(22) And the list could go on and on, get it?
[7] The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005 AD
[8] World Trade Center bombing, by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[9] Explosions Hit Three Tube Stations, One Bus, Thursday, July 21, 2005, Fox News
[10] By Ellen Knickmeyer and K.I. Ibrahim, Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01
[11] Suicide attack, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[12] Zarqawi Calls for Jordan King's Head, Friday, November 18, 2005
[13] The Daily Star, 03/21/2006, Vol. 5 #644
[14] CBS News, WASHINGTON, March 12, 2004
[15] Free Republic, News/Activism 05/30/2006 5:46:30 PM PDT, and, The Telegraph, By Colin Randall in Paris (Filed: 31/05/2006)
[16] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[17] CNN, Thursday, March 18, 2004 Posted: 4:59 PM EST (2159 GMT)
[18] Telegraph (UK), Israeli crisis is a smoke screen for Iran's nuclear ambitions, By Con Coughlin(Filed: 14/07/2006)
[19] Associated Press
[20], Bali a soft target, experts say, By Marianne Kearney in Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday 03 October 2005, 20:20 Makka Time, 17:20 GMT
[21] MSNBC, Associated Press, Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET July 12, 2006
[22] Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[23] CNN, CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN, Debate Over Guantanamo Detainees Continues, Aired January 21, 2002 - 22:00 ET
[24] TIME, The Daily Dish, by Andrew Sullivan, The Alleged UK Terror Plot, 16 Aug 2006 09:58 am
[25] The New Yorker, BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS - India and Pakistan are caught in a dangerous struggle over Kashmir. But what do its people want? by Isabel Hilton , Issue of 2002-03-11
[26] USA Today, USA's Muslims under a cloud, Updated 8/10/2006 9:13 AM ET
[27] NITV Satellite TV station located in Los Angeles, on Masjed Soleymaani Hastam, and [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great, and (in German) Iran/forum/viewtopic.php of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' and, and
[28] AOL NEWS, War on Terror, and, Third Lebanese Arrested in German Train Terror Plot , (via
[source - Large Religions are False Religions - Their Fruitage, by Iris the Preacher].
In fact, they are even to this day trying to start violence in North America with a view to Islamic Imperialism. Let's consider the Fort Dix fouled plan to commit murder with respect furtherance of their wicked goal. <<<" WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government has charged five alleged Islamic radicals with plotting to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey.
A sixth was charged with aiding and abetting the illegal possession of firearms by three of the others.
"The philosophy that supports and encourages jihad around the world against Americans came to live here in New Jersey and threaten the lives of our citizens through these defendants," New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said at a news conference Tuesday. (Watch how the suspects' trip to a video store led to the arrest )
The men were arrested Monday night and heard the charges against them Tuesday in federal court. They will be held without bond pending a hearing Friday, according to Michael Drewniak, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey....
One quote from the alleged recordings was defendant Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer saying, "My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers. ... This is exactly what we are looking for. You hit four, five or six Humvees and light the whole place [up] and retreat completely without any losses."...
Their goal was to figure out how to kill as many American soldiers as possible, Christie said.
The men had surveyed a number of bases but settled on Fort Dix because one of the defendants said he knew the base "like the back of his hand" because he had delivered pizza there, Christie said. (About Fort Dix)" [source - CNN in May, 2007]>>>.
So as we can see, Islamic Imperialism is alive and well and a great danger to all freedom loving people everywhere as its goal is the same as in the past, namely to greedily take that which belonged to others, to subjugate the enslaved, and to brain wash them. Be careful, you could be next.
Yet Islam has the nerve to scream about justified temporary occupation while showing no sign of ending their occupations, many of which have lasted for centuries.
As stated previously, Today, many in Islam decry the temporary occupation of Iraq by a coalition that wants nothing better than to leave, but does not see how it can until members of Islam stop killing each other because they belong to different flavors of Islam - until the country is stabilized. Yet, these same members of Islam, many of which have been occupying other's lands for centuries see no wrong in so doing - what a corrupt double standard. For example, they wrongly occupy much of Palestine, but the entire Palestine was given not to the descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael, from whom the Arabs descended, but to the descendants of Abraham's son, Isaac, by none other than the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, himself, as clearly recorded in Numbers 34:1-28, previously quoted in the Introduction.
Even the Qur'an clearly testifies to a Kingdom of the Hebrews in Palestine so the members of Islam have no excuse for not knowing they have been illegally occupying this country since the Seventh Century. <<<" The distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, gives abundant testimony to the existence to the ancient kingdom of the Hebrews that has recently come out of a long hiatus. This will now be shown from three different versions of the Quran that testify to this kingdom under King Solomon and a visit by the Queen of Sheba.


YUSUFALI: And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: "Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?
PICKTHAL: And he sought among the birds and said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent?
SHAKIR: And he reviewed the birds, then said: How is it I see not the hoopoe or is it that he is of the absentees?

YUSUFALI: "I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence)."
PICKTHAL: I verily will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily shall bring me a plain excuse.
SHAKIR: I will most certainly punish him with a severe punishment, or kill him, or he shall bring to me a clear plea.

YUSUFALI: But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: "I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.
PICKTHAL: But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings.
SHAKIR: And he tarried not long, then said: I comprehend that which you do not comprehend and I have brought to you a sure information from Sheba.

YUSUFALI: "I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne.
PICKTHAL: Lo! I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne.
SHAKIR: Surely I found a woman ruling over them, and she has been given abundance and she has a mighty throne:

YUSUFALI: "I found her and her people worshipping the sun besides Allah: Satan has made their deeds seem pleasing in their eyes, and has kept them away from the Path,- so they receive no guidance,-
PICKTHAL: I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allah; and Satan maketh their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the way (of Truth), so that they go not aright;
SHAKIR: I found her and her people adoring the sun instead of Allah, and the Shaitan has made their deeds fair-seeming to them and thus turned them from the way, so they do not go aright

YUSUFALI: "(Kept them away from the Path), that they should not worship Allah, Who brings to light what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knows what ye hide and what ye reveal.
PICKTHAL: So that they worship not Allah, Who bringeth forth the hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knoweth what ye hide and what ye proclaim,
SHAKIR: That they do not make obeisance to Allah, Who brings forth what is hidden in the heavens and the earth and knows what you hide and what you make manifest:

YUSUFALI: "Allah!- there is no god but He!- Lord of the Throne Supreme!"
PICKTHAL: Allah; there is no Allah save Him, the Lord of the Tremendous Throne.
SHAKIR: Allah, there is no god but He: He is the Lord of mighty power.

YUSUFALI: (Solomon) said: "Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!
PICKTHAL: (Solomon) said: We shall see whether thou speakest truth or whether thou art of the liars.
SHAKIR: He said: We will see whether you have told the truth or whether you are of the liars:

See Part 2


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Part 2

YUSUFALI: "Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return"...
PICKTHAL: Go with this my letter and throw it down unto them; then turn away and see what (answer) they return,
SHAKIR: Take this my letter and hand it over to them, then turn away from them and see what (answer) they return.

YUSUFALI: (The queen) said: "Ye chiefs! here is delivered to me - a letter worthy of respect.
PICKTHAL: (The Queen of Sheba) said (when she received the letter): O chieftains! Lo! there hath been thrown unto me a noble letter.
SHAKIR: She said: O chief! surely an honorable letter has been delivered to me

YUSUFALI: "It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): 'In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful:
PICKTHAL: Lo! it is from Solomon, and lo! it is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;
SHAKIR: Surely it is from Sulaiman, and surely it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;

YUSUFALI: "'Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).'"
PICKTHAL: Exalt not yourselves against me, but come unto me as those who surrender.
SHAKIR: Saying: exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission.

YUSUFALI: She said: "Ye chiefs! advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence."
PICKTHAL: She said: O chieftains! Pronounce for me in my case. I decide no case till ye are present with me.
SHAKIR: She said: O chiefs! give me advice respecting my affair: I never decide an affair until you are in my presence.

YUSUFALI: They said: "We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command."
PICKTHAL: They said: We are lords of might and lords of great prowess, but it is for thee to command; so consider what thou wilt command.
SHAKIR: They said: We are possessors of strength and possessors of mighty prowess, and the command is yours, therefore see what you will command.

YUSUFALI: She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.
PICKTHAL: She said: Lo! kings, when they enter a township, ruin it and make the honour of its people shame. Thus will they do.
SHAKIR: She said: Surely the kings, when they enter a town, ruin it and make the noblest of its people to be low, and thus they (always) do;

YUSUFALI: "But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors."
PICKTHAL: But lo! I am going to send a present unto them, and to see with what (answer) the messengers return.
SHAKIR: And surely I am going to send a present to them, and shall wait to see what (answer) do the messengers bring back.

YUSUFALI: Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: "Will ye give me abundance in wealth? But that which Allah has given me is better than that which He has given you! Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!
PICKTHAL: So when (the envoy) came unto Solomon, (the King) said: What! Would ye help me with wealth? But that which Allah hath given me is better than that which He hath given you. Nay it is ye (and not I) who exult in your gift.
SHAKIR: So when he came to Sulaiman, he said: What! will you help me with wealth? But what Allah has given me is better than what He has given you. Nay, you are exultant because of your present;

YUSUFALI: "Go back to them, and be sure we shall come to them with such hosts as they will never be able to meet: We shall expel them from there in disgrace, and they will feel humbled (indeed)."
PICKTHAL: Return unto them. We verily shall come unto them with hosts that they cannot resist, and we shall drive them out from thence with shame, and they will be abased.
SHAKIR: Go back to them, so we will most certainly come to them with hosts which they shall have no power to oppose, and we will most certainly expel them therefrom in abasement, and they shall be in a state of ignominy.

YUSUFALI: He said (to his own men): "Ye chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?"
PICKTHAL: He said: O chiefs! Which of you will bring me her throne before they come unto me, surrendering?
SHAKIR: He said: O chiefs! which of you can bring to me her throne before they come to me in submission?

YUSUFALI: Said an 'Ifrit, of the Jinns: "I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted."
PICKTHAL: A stalwart of the jinn said: I will bring it thee before thou canst rise from thy place. Lo! I verily am strong and trusty for such work.
SHAKIR: One audacious among the jinn said: I will bring it to you before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty for it.

YUSUFALI: Said one who had knowledge of the Book: "I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of an eye!" Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said: "This is by the Grace of my Lord!- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! and if any is grateful, truly his gratitude is (a gain) for his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, truly my Lord is Free of all Needs, Supreme in Honour !"
PICKTHAL: One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said: I will bring it thee before thy gaze returneth unto thee. And when he saw it set in his presence, (Solomon) said: This is of the bounty of my Lord, that He may try me whether I give thanks or am ungrateful. Whosoever giveth thanks he only giveth thanks for (the good of) his own soul; and whosoever is ungrateful (is ungrateful only to his own soul's hurt). For lo! my Lord is Absolute in independence, Bountiful.
SHAKIR: One who had the knowledge of the Book said: I will bring it to you in the twinkling of an eye. Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful; and whoever is grateful, he is grateful only for his own soul, and whoever is ungrateful, then surely my Lord is Self-sufficient, Honored.

YUSUFALI: He said: "Transform her throne out of all recognition by her: let us see whether she is guided (to the truth) or is one of those who receive no guidance."
PICKTHAL: He said: Disguise her throne for her that we may see whether she will go aright or be of those not rightly guided.
SHAKIR: He said: Alter her throne for her, we will see whether she follows the right way or is of those who do not go aright.

YUSUFALI: So when she arrived, she was asked, "Is this thy throne?" She said, "It was just like this; and knowledge was bestowed on us in advance of this, and we have submitted to Allah (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: So, when she came, it was said (unto her): Is thy throne like this? She said: (It is) as though it were the very one. And (Solomon said): We were given the knowledge before her and we had surrendered (to Allah).
SHAKIR: So when she came, it was said: Is your throne like this? She said: It is as it were the same, and we were given the knowledge before it, and we were submissive.
YUSUFALI: And he diverted her from the worship of others besides Allah: for she was (sprung) of a people that had no faith.
PICKTHAL: And (all) that she was wont to worship instead of Allah hindered her, for she came of disbelieving folk.
SHAKIR: And what she worshipped besides Allah prevented her, surely she was of an unbelieving people.

YUSUFALI: She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass." She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul: I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."
PICKTHAL: It was said unto her: Enter the hall. And when she saw it she deemed it a pool and bared her legs. (Solomon) said: Lo! it is a hall, made smooth, of glass. She said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged myself, and I surrender with Solomon unto Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR: It was said to her: Enter the palace; but when she saw it she deemed it to be a great expanse of water, and bared her legs. He said: Surely it is a palace made smooth with glass. She said: My Lord! surely I have been unjust to myself, and I submit with Sulaiman to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

YUSUFALI: We sent (aforetime), to the Thamud, their brother Salih, saying, "Serve Allah": But behold, they became two factions quarrelling with each other.
PICKTHAL: And We verily sent unto Thamud their brother Salih, saying: Worship Allah. And lo! they (then became two parties quarrelling.
SHAKIR: And certainly We sent to Samood their brother Salih, saying: Serve Allah; and lo! they became two sects quarrelling with each other.

So as we can see, that while some members try to falsely assert that the Hebrews ever had a nation, the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, they claim to believe even testifies to the existence of this nation in ancient times.

Of course the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, is full of distortions, and here is one example, How can little worm eat away Solomans staff? Was Solomon standing there for months and waited for the little worm to finish until it fell apart? Solomon is amused at the speech of an ant? (27:19) How could Solomon keep his sanity if he heard all the voices of all the insects around him? He must have been drowned in constant chatter. It is high time that all accept the fact that the Quran is nothing but a distorted knockoff of the Bible, and that the Bible truly is the word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.



YUSUFALI: And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient): Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
PICKTHAL: And unto Solomon (We gave) the wind, whereof the morning course was a month's journey and the evening course a month's journey, and We caused the fount of copper to gush forth for him, and (We gave him) certain of the jinn who worked before him by permission of his Lord. And such of them as deviated from Our command, them We caused to taste the punishment of flaming Fire.
SHAKIR: And (We made) the wind (subservient) to Sulaiman, which made a month's journey in the morning and a month's journey m the evening, and We made a fountain of molten copper to flow out for him, and of the jinn there were those who worked before him by the command of his Lord; and whoever turned aside from Our command from among them, We made him taste of the punishment of burning.

YUSUFALI: They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!"
PICKTHAL: They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful.
SHAKIR: They made for him what he pleased of fortresses and images, and bowls (large) as watering-troughs and cooking-pots that will not move from their place; give thanks, O family of Dawood! and very few of My servants are grateful.

YUSUFALI: Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task).
PICKTHAL: And when We decreed death for him, nothing showed his death to them save a creeping creature of the earth which gnawed away his staff. And when he fell the jinn saw clearly how, if they had known the Unseen, they would not have continued in despised toil.
SHAKIR: But when We decreed death for him, naught showed them his death but a creature of the earth that ate away his staff; and when it fell down, the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment.

And, still more:


YUSUFALI: (It was Our power that made) the violent (unruly) wind flow (tamely) for Solomon, to his order, to the land which We had blessed: for We do know all things.
PICKTHAL: And unto Solomon (We subdued) the wind in its raging. It set by his command toward the land which We had blessed. And of everything We are Aware.
SHAKIR: And (We made subservient) to Sulaiman the wind blowing violent, pursuing its course by his command to the land which We had blessed, and We are knower of ail things.

YUSUFALI: And of the evil ones, were some who dived for him, and did other work besides; and it was We Who guarded them.
PICKTHAL: And of the evil ones (subdued We unto him) some who dived (for pearls) for him and did other work, and We were warders unto them.
SHAKIR: And of the rebellious people there were those who dived for him and did other work besides that, and We kept guard over them;


From an encyclopedia, <<" Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.pngUnited Monarchy under Solomon
Solomon (Latin name) or Shlomo is a figure described in Middle Eastern scriptures as a wise ruler of an empire, living perhaps around 1000 BCE.
The names "Shlomo" and "Solomon" are usually associated with the Biblical account of his life.

His father was named David (Hebrew). In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) he is also called Jedidiah and described as the third king of the united Kingdom of Israel, prior to the split between the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Following the split, the kings of Judah were descended patrilinealy from Solomon.

Solomon was the builder of the first Temple in Jerusalem, also known as Solomon's Temple. He was renowned for his great wisdom, wealth, and power, but also blamed for his later pacifism toward his converted wives in their worship of other gods. He is the subject of many later legends. Some Kabbalah masters claim[citation needed] to be his descendents.

The name Solomon (Shlomo) means "peaceful," or "complete", from the Hebrew Shelomoh. The name given by God to Solomon in the Bible is Jedidiah, meaning "friend of God", (2 Samuel 12:25), and some scholars have conjectured that Solomon is a "king name" taken either when he assumed the throne or upon his death.

Solomon's case is one of the few in the Bible where the name given by God does not stay with the character. Solomon's birth is considered a grace from God, after the death of the previous child between David and Bathsheba.

Solomon was David's second son by Bathsheba [1], and his declared heir to the throne. Solomon's history is recorded in 1 Kings 1-11 and 2 Chronicles 1-9. He succeeded his father (reigned circa 1011/1010 BCE to 971/970 BCE) on the throne in about 971 or 970 BCE, not 1037 BCE (1 Kings 6:1), according to E. R. Thiele. His father chose him as his successor, passing over the claims of his elder sons, by women other than Bathsheba. His elevation to the throne took place before his father's death, and is hastened on mainly by Nathan and Bathsheba, in consequence of the rebellion of Adonijah.

During his long reign of 40 years the Hebrew monarchy gained its highest splendor. This period has well been called the "Augustan Age" of the Jewish annals. In a single year he collected tribute amounting to 666 talents of gold, according to 1 Kings 10:14.

The first half of his reign was, however, by far the brighter and more prosperous; the latter half was clouded by the idolatries into which he fell, mainly, according to the scribes, from his intermarriages. According to 1 Kings 11:3, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. As soon as he had settled himself in his kingdom, and arranged the affairs of his extensive empire, he entered into an alliance with Egypt by a marriage with the daughter of the Pharaoh. ...

Islamic view of Solomon
Main article: Islamic view of Solomon
See Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an
Solomon also appears in the Qur'an, where he is called Sulayman, which is Solomon in Arabic (Sulaiman or Suleiman). The Qur'an refers to Solomon as the son of David, as a prophet and as a great ruler imparted by God with tremendous wisdom, favor, and special powers just like his father, David. The Quran states that Solomon had under his rule not only people, but also hosts of hidden beings (i.e., jinn). It also states that Solomon was able to understand the language of the birds and ants, and to see some of the hidden glory in the world that was not accessible to common human beings. The Islamic view on Solomon is based entirely on revelation's to Muhammed which comprise part of the Qur'an." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>, [source - The Quran Testifies to The Kingdom of the Hebrews:, by Iris the Preacher, 2007]>>>.
Yet, even though their Qur'an, as shown by direct quotes from three different versions/translations of the Qur'an, clearly show that the land of Palestine clearly belongs to the Hebrews, the descendents of Abraham's son Isaac, and not to the descendents of Abraham's son Ishmael, Islam greedily wants all of Palestine. They still occupy a large part of it - Gaza and the west bank. They, although they scream about even temporary occupation of Iraq for legitimate and beneficial reasons, they stubbornly refuse to get out of all of Palestine which does not belong to them; in fact, they routinely harass the rightful owners and challenge their right to exist - how hateful and wicked.
But this is not the only area that they are wrongfully occupying. Turkey is another and it rightfully belongs to the Byzantine Empire; Pakistan and Afghanistan both of which originally were part of 'greater India' and were the property of Buddhist and Hindu people. Islam should return these lands to their rightful owners and deprogram those whose ancestors were brain washed.
Let's just consider for a minute how 'greater India' was occupied by Islam to see how horrible the wicked wrong was.
Satyameva Jayate, Truth Alone Triumphs, as sponsored by Jai Maharaj, stated the following, <<<"Genocide committed in the name of Allah: 3,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus Killed during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. From 1894 to 1896 Abdul Hamid, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, killed 150,000 Armenian Christians. In India, Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur along with his disciples was burned to death by the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb in 1675. Another Sikh, Bhai Mati Das was sawn into right and left halves while he was still alive. In July 1974, 4,000 Christians living in Cyprus were killed by Fahri Koroturk, president of Turkey and his Islamic army. From 1843 to 1846 10,000 Assyrian Christians including women and children were massacred by the Muslims. From 1915 to 1918 750,000 Assyrians were killed in the name of Islamic Jihad. In 1933 thousands of Assyrian villagers were murdered by the Iraqi soldiers in Northern Iraq. Since 1990 more than 10,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been brutally murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. Over 280,000 Ugandans killed during the reign of Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979. Over 30,000 Mauritanians have been killed by the Islamic dictators since 1960. In 1980, 20,000 Syrians were murdered under the rule of Hafez Al-Assad, President of Syria. Since 1992 120,000 Algerians have been murdered by the Islamic fundamentalist army" [source - Satyameva Jayate, Truth Alone Triumphs, as sponsored by Jai Maharaj, ]>>>.[/quote]
And, <<<" K. S. Lai, the greatest of all historians in India said, <<"Islam received a definite check in India. In other words, while countries like Arabia, Persia, Mesopotamia and Syria succumbed to the onslaught of Islam and converted en masse, the sword of Islam was blunted in India. This check provided provocation and enthusiasm to some Muslim conquerors and rulers to take to the task of proselytization with great zeal and earnestness. Their exertions and achievements find repeated mention in official and non-official chronicles and similar other works. Sometimes, besides broad facts, actual data and figures in this regard are also available. All this information is very helpful in estimating Muslim numbers as they grew from almost a cipher. ">>.

He went on to quote, <<"By the year 1000 of the Christian Era the extreme north-western parts of India, in the trans-Indus region, had become introduced to Islam. As early as C.E. 664, consequent upon an invasion of Kabul and its environs (which then formed part of India), by Abdur Rahman, a few thousand inhabitants are reported to have been converted to Islam" [source - Ferishtah, Tarikh-i-Ferishtah, Persian text, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow 1865, Vol.1, p.16.]>>, and <<"Subuktagin also fought against the Hindus and converted some of them. But all these events took place in the trans-Indus region, and we may, therefore, agree with Lanepoole in saying that in C.E. 1000 there were no Muslims in northern India east of the Indus."[source - Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Muhammadan Rule (London, 1926), p.1.}>>.

But conversion by the proverbial sword and the stealing of other's land was only to grow worse. <<" However, there were some small settlements of Muslims in Sind, Gujarat and the Malabar Coast. Parts of Sind were conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim Sakifi in C.E. 712. Whichever towns he took, like Alor, Nirun, Debul and Multan, in them he established mosques, appointed Muslim governors, and propagated the Muhammadan religion." [source - Chachnama, trs. in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Vols., London, 1867-77, (here after as E and D), Vol. I, p. 207.]>>. And to continue, <<"In Debul, for instance, he enslaved and converted some women and children, and left a contingent of 4,000 Muhammadans to garrison the place." [source - Al Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan, trs. E and D, I, p.120]>>.

Forced conversions were to become a way of life and standard operating principle of (SOP) of Islam as shown by, <<" In Multan about 6,000 persons were made to accept Islam. Al Biladuri's narrative indicates that the people of Sawandari, Basmad, Kiraj, and Alor were converted in large numbers." [source - Al Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan, trs. E and D, I, p.122 to 124]>>; another large forced conversion was, <<"by Muhammad bin Qasim Sakifi to Hajjaj also point to large number of conversions." [source - Chachnama, op. cit., pp. 163-64. Also pp. 205-07, 208]>>.

<<"Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little more than three years." [source - Elliot's Appendix in E and D, I, p.439]>>. <<"After his recall not only the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly, but also most of the neo-converts returned to their former faith. Al Biladuri informs that 'in the days of Tamim, the Musalmans (had) retired from several parts of India... nor have they up to the present time (he wrote in the middle of the ninth century) advanced so far as in days gone by". When Hakim succeeded Tamim, "the people of India had returned to idolatry excepting those of Kassa, and the Musalmans had no place of security in which they could take refuge"." [source - Biladuri, op. cit., p.126, Also cf. Idrisi, E and D, I, Nuzhat-ul-Mushtaq]>>, <<"Sir Dension Ross also says that "after the recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslim retained some foothold on the west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small numbers that they gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism." [ source - Dension Ross, Islam, p.18.]>>.

Conversions made at the point of the proverbial sword did not always hold as shown by, <<" In brief, because of the efforts of Muhammad bin Qasim and Caliph Umar II (C.E. 717-24) some Hindus in Sind had been converted to Islam, but by the time of Caliph Hashim (724-43), when Tamim was the governor of Sind, many of these Sindhi converts had returned to Hinduism. Those who continued to retain the new faith remained confined mostly to cities, particularly Multan. After Mahmud of Ghazni's attack on Multan their number seems to have gone up for, writing in the twelfth century, Al Idrisi says: "The greater part of the population (of Multan) is Musalman, so also the Judicial authority and civil administration." [ However, up to C.E. 1000 there were very few Muslims in Sind." [sources - Al Idrisi, p.83. and Elliot's Appendix, E and D, I, p.459]>>.


History shows that around the year 1,000 violence, pillaging, and conversions at the proverbial point of the sword, etc. my Muslims in India gets worse. <<" In the year C.E. 1000 the first attack of Mahmud of Ghazni was delivered. The region of Mahmud's activity extended from Peshawar to Kanauj in the east and from Peshawar to Anhilwara in the South. In this, wherever he went, he converted people to Islam. In his attack on Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom, like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. Since the whole town is reported to have been converted the number of converts may have been quite large. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers for, writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were 'witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism'" [sources - Kitab-i-Yamini, Eng. trs. of Utbi's work by James Reynolds, (London) 1858, pp. 451-52, 455, 460, 462-63 and Utbi, Tarikh-i-Yamini, E and D, II, pp.27, 30, 33, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49. Also Appendix in E and D, II, pp.434-78]>>. <<"In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud 'converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni'. In the latter campaigns, in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing 'the conquest of Kanauj', Utbi sums up the situation thus: 'The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort..., and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him." In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in C.E. 1023, Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, 'Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force'. Conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objects of Mahmud. Al Qazwini writes that when Mahmud went "to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnat, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans" [source - Zakaria al Qazwini, Asar-ul-Bilad, E and D, I, p.98]>>; and <<"Sultan Mahmud was well-versed in the Quran and was considered its eminent interpreter."[source - C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 129. Utbi, Reynolds trs. op. cit., pp.438-39 and n.]>>; <<"He ardently desired to play the role of a true Muslim monarch and convert non-Muslims to his faith. Tarikh-i-Yamini, Rausat-us-Safa and Tarikh-i-Ferishtah, besides many other works, speak of construction of mosques and schools and appointment of preachers and teachers by Mahmud and his successor Masud." [source - Utbi, trs. Reynolds, op.cit., pp. 322-25, 462. Utbi, E and D, II, p.37 Ferishtah, op. cit., I, p.44.]>>; <<"Wherever Mahmud went, he insisted on the people to convert to Islam. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the vanquished Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even without giving a battle. "The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai was, that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpal's uncles and relations, when they demanded quarter in their distress." [source - Utbi, E and D, II, p.49.]>>; <<" There is no doubt that the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni brought good crop of converts, and a few more Muslims were added through the influence of Muslim Mashaikh and traders in Gujarat and Malabar. But if the example of Sind provides any precedent, it is possible that many Hindus forcibly converted to Islam during Mahmud's raids returned to their former faith. Very few Muslims were left in Sind after the decline of Arab rule. A local Karmatian Muhammadan dynasty was, however, ruling at Mansura and Multan. Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed it root and branch (1010) and Multan was deserted" [source - Ferishtah, op. cit., I, p.27, M. Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, Delhi reprint, 1951, p.34,]>>.


<<"About the end of the twelfth century, Muhammad Ghori established Muslim rule in India on a durable basis. When he captured Bhatinda in 1190-91, he placed in its command Qazi Ziyauddin with a contingent of 1200 horse." [source - Camb. Hist. India, III, p.40.]>>; <<"In 1192 he invaded Hindustan with an army of 120,000. A good number of his soldiers would have been killed in the sanguinary battle with Prithviraj. A major portion of the remainder would have stayed on in India under Qutbuddin Aibak, who must not have been left empty handed in an alien and hostile country." [source - Hasan Nizami says that 'the Sultan then returned to Ghazna... but the whole army remained... at the mauza of Indarpat'. (Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216). Surely Muhammad Ghori would not have gone back all alone.]>>.

It get's even worse, <<" Aibak entered upon a series of conquests. He despatched Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji to the East and himself captured Kol (modern Aligarh) in 1194. There "those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancient faith were slain with the sword" [source - Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216]>>; <<"In 1195 when Raja Bhim of Gujarat was attacked, 20,000 prisoners were captured," [source - Ferishtah, I, p.62.]>>; <<"and in 1202 at Kalinjar 50,000," [source - Hasan Nizami, p.231. Also Ferishtah, I, p.53. Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, (Allahabad, 1961), pp.69 and 334 (n.26), has missed to cite Hasan Nizami's assertion that 50,000 were enslaved.]>>; <<"and we may be sure that (as in the case of Arab conquest of Sind) all those who were made slaves were compelled to embrace the religion of the masters to whom they were allotted." [source - Titus. Islam in India and Pakistan (Calcutta, 1959), p.31.]>>; <<"Ferishtah specifically mentions that on the capture of Kalinjar "fifty thousand Kaniz va ghulam, having suffered slavery, were rewarded with the honour of Islam" [source - Ferishtah, I, p.63.]>>; <<"According to Ferishtah three to four hundred thousand Khokhars and Tirahias were also converted to Islam by Muhammad Ghori." [source - Ferishtah, I, pp.59-60.]>>.

See Part 3


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Part 3


Genocide and massacres and stealing of others lands and forced conversions continued as Islam's SOP <<"Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji's military exploits in the east also resulted in conversions to Islam. About the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century," [source & comments by S.K. Lal - The exact date of the raid is difficult to determine. Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (Allahabad, Fourth Impression, 1940), p.138 places it" probably in 1197", Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III,pp.45-46) a little earlier than this, and Habibullah, op. cit., pp.70 and 84, n. 78 in 1202-03.]>>; <<"he marched into Bihar and attacked the University centres of Nalanda, Vikramshila and Uddandapur, erecting a fortress at the site of Uddandapur or Odantapuri." [source - Indian Antiquary, IV, pp.366-67.]>>; <<"The Buddhist monks in these places were massacred and the common people, deprived of their priests and teachers, turned some to Brahmanism and some to Islam. Buddhism did not die out immediately or completely in Bihar." [source - Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, pp.70-73.]>>; <<"But Bakhtiyar's raid on Bihar did deliver a shattering blow to Buddhism and its lost followers were gained mainly by Islam. Muslim sway extended from Varanasi through the strip of Shahabad, Patna, Monghyr and Bhagalpur district," [source - Habibullah, op. cit., p.147]>>.

<<" During the time of Qutbuddin Aibak a large number of places were attacked and prisoners captured for which actual figures or written evidence are available. Figures of any conversions during campaigns to Kanauj, Varanasi (where the Muslims occupied "a thousand" temples)." [source - Ferishtah, I, p. 58]>>; <<"Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Bayana and Gwalior, and the campaigns carried out right up to Bengal are not available. However, since the notices of medieval chroniclers are usually full of exaggeration where figures of the defeated or captured non-Muslims are concerned, it would be reasonable to take into consideration only those which are specifically mentioned, any exaggeration being rounded off by those which are not." [source - Indian Muslims, Who Are They by K.S. Lal]>>[source - Islam, Violent From The Beginning Using India as An Example:, by Iris the Preacher, 2006]>>>.
And, <<<" Now here are the facts, the reality, of the murder, genocide of over 80 million endividuals in India by Muslims, <<"With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. The Muslim invasions continued even when the Muslims were ruling India, like the invasion of the Mongols during the reign of the Khiljis or the invasion of the Mughals in the early sixteenth Century when the Lodis were ruling Delhi. The last notable invasion of the Muslims from outside was the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739, during which he unleashed a great horror on the native population.

During these seven hundred years of Muslim invasions and their conquest and rule of India, the Hindus were the greatest sufferers. It is difficult to estimate the number of Hindus who lost their lives during these campaigns, the number of Hindus who lost their lives in the religious persecution perpetrated on the native population by the Muslim rulers or the number of Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam.

According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history." [source - The biggest holocaust in world history by Jayaram V]>>...
Now let's look at what others had to say about this greatest of all genocides:

Historian Will Durant wrote his book The Story of Civilization:, <<"The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." [source - "The Story of Civilization, " by Will Durant the great American historian].

French historian Alain Danielou wrote in his book Histoire de l'Inde:, <<"From the moment when the Muslims arrive in India, the history of India does not have any more great interest. It is long and monotonous series of murder, massacres, spoilations, destruction." [source - "Histoire de l'Inde," by Alain Danielou, great French historian]>>.

Hindu sage Padmanabha described in his KanhaDade Prabandha in 1456 AD the story of the Islamic invasion of Gujarat of 1298 AD:, <<"The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins ( priestly hindu class ) and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious slaves.

Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the sultan's secretary wrote in the 11th century:The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count." [source - "the story of the Islamic invasion of Gujarat of 1298 AD:, " (English translation), by Padmanabha, a famous Hindu of the 15 th. Century].

As shown, Islam engaged in a henious genocide clearly showing them to be a false religion that ignored the basic human right of freedom of conscience and belief, and even went so far as putting a 'head tax" on those they did not murder who continued to practice their own religion to exert pressure to convert." [source - Only a False Religion Commits Genocide Against Others: by Iris the Preacher 2007].


As stated in the introduction, <<<" Since its inception Islam claims to be a peaceful religion, but in practice it has been anything but peaceful. In fact, it was responsible for among other things, bringing on or being the cause of the Crusades, but trying to throw the blame for them on others. Let's look at the facts, <<<" Throughout history Islam which claims to be a religion of peace has attacked apostate (counterfeit) Christians and has attempted to steal land and people from them, and then cried fowl when they struck back. How ridicules and hypocritical that is for any group; to wit, to initiate blood guilt and then yell when the other group defends itself and strikes back.">>>. And the evidence presented in this article clearly proves it is anything but a peaceful religion, and today it is as violent as ever as clearly shown in this article beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Islam yells and screams about occupation, but they are the world's greatest wrongful occupiers and brain washers. Also, they are totally unwilling to give back occupied territory as clearly shown in the case of Palestine and elsewhere. Its like the real criminal pointing at everyone else and calling them criminals to cover up the fact that he is the real criminal.

NOW, HERE ARE THREE RECENT CASES, 2/27/2013, from the world news that show the evil goals of this organization with respect world violence.

ONE, America’s Homegrown Terrorists

By Eli Lake | The Daily Beast – Tue, Feb 26, 2013
America’s Homegrown Terrorists
In 1997, a Sudanese man named Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl became the first person to plead guilty in the United States to offenses related to being part of al Qaeda. Between al-Fadl’s conviction and the end of 2011, 170 other individuals have been convicted by American courts or military commissions for committing crimes on behalf of, or inspired by, the organization responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
A new study finds that a majority of these operatives were American citizens. Nearly a quarter were converts to Islam. More than half had completed some form of college course work.
Some of the names are well known, such as John Walker Lindh, the American who was found by U.S. troops in 2001 to be fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Others are described as al Qaeda aspirants, and were arrested and convicted of plotting terrorist acts after an informant or undercover FBI officer lured them into a sting.
While several organizations have examined the trend of Americans joining al Qaeda, the new study from the Henry Jackson Society, a right-leaning think tank in London, goes into specific biographical and demographic detail on the individuals themselves.
The study is especially timely this month as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has demanded President Obama release Justice Department legal memos spelling out his authority to kill U.S. citizens who have joined al Qaeda overseas. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, has threatened to hold the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director until he gets a statement from the White House that Obama does not have the authority to use drones against American citizens on American soil.
As for who joins al Qaeda, the report says there aren’t many advance signs. “There needs to be an acknowledgement that the threat can come from any region of the country, from any background or educational status,” said the report’s main author, Robin Simcox. “There is no classic profile for the home grown al Qaeda threat in the United States, the key here is to look at the spread of ideology and not profile for education, race or social status.”
Mike Hayden, the last CIA director under George W. Bush and the author of a preface to the new study, compared it to a baseball encyclopedia. “The way I would view this, this is not about targeting Americans or American groups, this is about being aware that Americans and American groups are being targeted by al Qaeda for recruitment,” he said.
This is a very different picture of the al Qaeda threat top national security officials warned about after 9-11. In that world, the threat was largely from highly trained individuals who infiltrated into the U.S. on fake passports or through other means. The report found that only 47 percent of the individuals convicted of al Qaeda-related offenses attended some kind of training camp. Of those who received training, 68 percent attended a camp in Afghanistan, 29 percent in Pakistan and 5 percent in Somalia.
Of the 171 convicted, 61 were born in the U.S. Of those, 17 are African American and 13 are Caucasian. The rest include Iraqi-, Jordanian-, and Egyptian-Americans.
The study also shows that 89 of 171 individuals convicted have received at least some kind of college education, with 39 individuals earning an advanced degree. At the time of their arrests, 97 of the total either had jobs or were in school.
Al Qaeda-related offenses, as defined by the study, can include anything from providing material support to al Qaeda to participating in attempted mass murder. The vast majority of the data for the report is culled from documents from U.S. federal court cases.
“As shown by many years of real-world experience, our federal courts are fully capable of handling terrorism prosecutions,” said James Benjamin, a lawyer with Akin Gump who authored a report in July 2009 on U.S. prosecutions of terrorism cases for Human Rights First. “Compiling statistics requires judgment calls, but we can all learn a great deal from the extensive factual record of successful terrorism cases in our courts during the past 15 years.”
(source - retrieved from on 2/27/2013)

TWO, Australian Muslim activists lose free speech case

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's highest court on Wednesday narrowly rejected the case of two Muslim activists who argued they had a constitutional free-speech right to send offensive letters to families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Iranian-born Man Horan Monis, a self-styled Sydney cleric also known as Sheik Haron, was charged with 12 counts of using a postal service in an offensive way and one count of using a postal service in a harassing way over three years until 2009. Amirah Droudis was charged with aiding and abetting the offences. They face potential maximum prison sentences of 26 years and 16 years respectively if convicted.
The six judges of the High Court split on whether the charges were compatible with Australians' right to free speech. When the nation's highest court is tied, an appeal is dismissed and the lower court decision stands.
That sends the charges to a lower court where they will be heard on a date to be set.
Monis allegedly wrote letters critical of Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan and condemning the dead soldiers. He also allegedly wrote to the mother of an Australian official killed in a terrorist bomb blast in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2009 and blamed Australian government foreign policy for the tragedy.
His lawyer David Bennett argued in the High Court last year that the letters were "purely political." He argued the charges were invalid because they infringed on Australians' right to freedom of political communication.
The Australian Constitution doesn't include an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment. But the High Court has held for decades that the constitution contains an implied right to free speech because such political communication is essential to democracy. This right is not as extensive as that guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The pair had appealed in the High Court the unanimous ruling of three judges of the New South Wales state Court of Appeal in December 2011.
"Whilst at one level the letters are critical of the involvement of the Australian military in Afghanistan, they also refer to the deceased soldiers in a denigrating and derogatory fashion," their judgment said.
Prof. Anne Twomey, a Sydney University constitutional lawyer, said the High Court's tied decision offered little legal precedent on the extent that offensive speech can be prohibited in Australia.
She said the issues could be tried again in a different case. Two of the seven judges on the High Court will have changed before the next such case is heard.
"It's rather unpredictable" how the court would rule on a similar case, Twomey said. "The area of offensive speech has always been difficult."
Only six judges heard the case because the seventh, Justice William Gummow, intended to retire in October last year before the trial was likely to be completely heard.
One of the judges who would have upheld the appeal on free speech grounds, Justice John Dyson Haydon, retires in March.
It is a crime under Australian federal law to use a postal service to communicate a message that "reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive."
Twomey said Monis and Droudis might not have been charged if the letters had been hand delivered.
Federal authorities have limited criminal jurisdiction in Australia and relied in this prosecution on its powers over national postal and electronic communications.
Australia has 1,550 troops in Afghanistan which is the biggest military contribution to the war of any country outside NATO. Australia has suffered 39 casualties over the past decade in Afghanistan and another 249 Australian soldiers have been wounded.
(source - retrieved from on 2/27/2013)

THREE, France says will not negotiate with Cameroon hostage-takers

By Nicholas Vinocur and Tiemoko Diallo | Reuters – 21 hrs ago
PARIS/BAMAKO (Reuters) - France said on Tuesday it would not negotiate with gunmen claiming to be from Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram who have taken a French family of seven hostage in retaliation for French military intervention in Mali.
The three adults and four children were kidnapped in north Cameroon near the Nigerian border last week. In a video posted online, the gunmen said France had declared war on Islam with its campaign in Mali and threatened to kill the hostages unless authorities in Nigeria and Cameroon freed militants there.
"We do not negotiate on that kind of basis, with these kind of groups," French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told RTL radio. "We will use all (other) possible means to ensure these and other hostages are freed."
Le Drian said the fighting was not close to an end and troops in Mali's remote mountain and desert north were facing stiff resistance from the "strongest and most organized" rebels, underscoring the risk of French and African forces becoming entangled in a messy guerrilla war.
The kidnapping brought to 15 the number of French citizens held in West Africa and highlighted the danger to French nationals and interests in the region since Paris sent troops to Mali last month to help oust Islamist rebels.
It was the first abduction of foreigners in the mostly Muslim north of Cameroon, a former French colony. But the region - with its porous borders - is within the operational sphere of Boko Haram and fellow Nigerian Islamist militants Ansaru.
Boko Haram, one of a number of al-Qaeda linked groups in the region, has killed hundreds of people in recent years in an attempt to establish an Islamist state in Nigeria.
"The principle of terrorism is the same whether you are in Somalia with the Al Shabaab, in Mali with Ansar Dine or in Nigeria with Boko Haram or Ansaru," Le Drian said. "It's the same system, the same methods, which threaten us."
The video posted online on Monday showed the hostages, including the four boys, surrounded by three gunmen wearing turbans and camouflage gear.
"The president of France has launched a war on Islam and we are fighting it everywhere," said one of the apparent kidnappers, identifying himself as a member of Boko Haram.
In Mali, French and Chadian troops are encountering strong resistance from die-hard al Qaeda-linked Islamists in the mountainous north, Le Drian said.
Chadian troops launched an offensive at the weekend against fighters holed up in the Adrar des Ifoghas mountains near the Algerian border but suffered the heaviest losses since the international offensive began last month.
Chad's armed forces said some 23 of its soldiers and about 90 rebels were killed in the fighting. French fighter jets and helicopters were forced to support the Chadian offensive.
"The most fundamentalist elements are there," Le Drian said. "The strongest and most organized forces. We expected resistance and we've had some extremely violent battles."
Paris intervened in its former West African colony six weeks ago to stop a southward offensive by Islamist fighters who seized control of the north last April.
After quickly driving the rebels out of major urban areas, France and its African allies have focused on the remote northeast - an area the size of France that includes networks of caves, passes and porous borders.
Asked about the timing for pulling out the 4,000 French troops, Le Drian said it was hard to give a precise timetable.
"If things evolve normally, we could begin leaving before the end of March," Le Drian said, adding that the operation had cost about 100 million euros ($130.73 million)so far.
Rebels have staged bombings and raids mainly targeting Mali's poorly trained and equipped army in northern cities.
A spokesman for Mali's military said on Tuesday a total of 37 Malian soldiers had been killed and 138 injured since the start of the offensive. He said five Malian soldiers suspected of ethnic reprisals after the recapture of Timbuktu had been called back to Bamako by military authorities.
($1 = 0.7567 euros)
(Writing by Catherine Bremer and John Irish; Editing by Michael Roddy)
(source - retrieved from on 2/27/2013)


Clearly the items from the world news clearly show that all the different Islamic groups are working toward the evil goal of world domination and the removal of freedom from all who are not members of their evil false religion. Also, I challenge any and all to show any factual error(s) in my facts.

Now to know the truth, go to:








Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!


Posts : 3078
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum