Gandhi – the perverted sex-maniac made hero

February 3, 2008

Click this: Gandhi – My experiments with Sex

And know the real Gandhi!


Mohammad Shujaat on Women

October 13, 2008

By: Ibn Kammuna

I stumbled upon a book written by Mohammad Shujaat. The title of the book was interesting “Social Justice in Islam” (ANMOL Publications PVT.LTD, New Delhi, 2004). The title intrigued me, only to be disappointed with the intellectual level of the author. One cannot write a lot in one short article to show the author’s intellectual dishonesty and lack of a decent ability of critical analysis. In this article I will only talk about some of the things he wrote about Islam and women. Here is what he writes:

This concept of the sanctity of chastity and the protection of women can be found nowhere else except in Islam. The armies of the western powers need the daughters of their own nations to satisfy their carnal appetites even in their own countries, and if they happen to occupy another country, the fate of its womenfolk can better be imagined than described.
But the history of the Muslims, apart from individual lapses, has been free from this crime against womanhood. It has never happened that after the conquest of a foreign country the Muslim army has gone about raping the women of the conquered people, or, in their own country, the government has arranged to provide prostitutes for them. (Page 39)

Note that his first sentence implies that only Islam protects the “sanctity and chastity and the protection” of women (I guess Mr. Shujaat doesn’t know what the Pakistani army did to the women of Bangladesh during their independence war). The author has not done a survey of all cultures, past and present, to make such a claim. In fact, such a claim makes Islam guilty of viewing a woman as no more than a commodity. However, what follows, makes clear what he is comparing women’s status in Islam with; it is the western culture and its view of women. Western values do not view women only as a sexual object. They are viewed as a full human being with rights and obligations, just as a man. In fact, what Mr. Shujaat mentions, makes clear that women in Islam are viewed only as sexual objects.

The second paragraph in the above quote aims at “saving grace” with regard how Muslims treated women in the past. Women in Islam are treated as “awrat”. They can bring honor or shame to the male Muslims, and that is why male chauvinist Muslims are always trying to subdue women. Also, Muslims in the past enslaved and raped women after their conquests. In fact, the prophet of Islam sanctioned such practice after each “Ghazwa” the Muslims did steal other people’s belongings, kill the men, enslave women and children, and rape the women. If you don’t believe me, look at this story about the holy prophet:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Note that the above hadith shows that the early Muslims took women as slaves and raped them. However, economics ruled, and women slaves were sold. A non-pregnant slave was worth more than a pregnant slave. This why Muslim men practiced coitus interruptus. They wanted sex without a resulting pregnancy, so they can get a better price for the slave woman when they sell her. Also, it is of critical importance in the above hadith to note the prophet’s value system. He did not worry about raping the women. That was not a problem for him. What was a problem is how to make sure that the men had the ultimate sexual joy out of raping those women made slave by Islam’s evil “Ghazwas”. Mr. Shujaat either did not know about the above hadith, or just wants to lie to people in his book to elevate Islam. If this is not enough evidence to incriminate Mr. Shujaat as a decent writer, look at the following verse from the Qur’an (33:50):
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage – a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers – We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess – that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

A true Muslim may not like the above verse because it proves that the holy prophet did practice raping women. Those women were given to him as spoils of war, by the mighty Allah. You see, the god of Muhammad did make sure that the prophet’s carnal desires are fully satisfied! I am sure Mr. Shujaat has seen the above verse. It is in his holy book after all.

The Suicidal Mohammad???

October 7, 2008

Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111:
Narrated ‘Aisha:

The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship(Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.” (The Prophet added), “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, “I do not know how to read,” whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, “I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?).” Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, “Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous…up to….. ..that which he knew not.” (96.15)

(parts before omitted because it was too long)

But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth” whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn ‘Abbas said regarding the meaning of: ‘He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)’ (6.96) that Al-Asbah. means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night).

1) Concerning the first part – The start of Islam
a) Why would an all-knowing deity ask an illiterate man to read?
b) Why does the spirit tell us that man was created from blood clots when it’s not true?
c) If this spirit “taught by the pen what men did not know,” where are those words?
d) And why digress to an oral recital when written testimony is superior?
e) Why gloat, saying he’s generous – in what way and to whom?
f) But the real question is: if this spirit “taught by the pen what men did not know,” where are those words?

2) Why was Mohammad suicidal?
a) When someone dies, do thoughts of suicide normally overtake someone?
b) Does this preclude Mohammad from being a prophet, because no prophet before was ever suicidal?
c) How many times did Gabriel go to Mohammad to tell him he was Allah’s messenger?
d) Does the fact that Gabriel had to tell Mohammad more than 1 time he was Allah’s messenger mean that Gabriel was not very convincing?
e) Or that Mohammad did not believe a spirit who nearly crushed the life out of him, and asked him (an illiterate man to read)?

3) Some people allege that it was not an angel who convinced Mohammad to not commit suicide, but Satan. However, the argument to this point has been that if it was indeed Satan who met Mohammad and nearly pressed the life out of him, and then saved Mohammad from suicide, Mohammad would not have pulled through and succeeded in his mission to spread the message of God.
a) Let’s examine this claim:
b) If it was an angel from God, well, insert questions from section 1 here…
c) Did Mohammad succeed in spreading the message of God?
i) What was the message?
ii) To kill infidels?
iii) To outlaw adoption so that Mohammad could marry his adopted son’s wife?
(see comment 3 of
iv) Was it to make booty (aka plunder) lawful for Mohammad? Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331
v) By making Mohammad victorious through terror? (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331)
vi) That muslim women should have hairless palms?
vii) Etc, etc…
viii) Is this the message of God or the message of Satan?
d) Furthermore, If Muslims believe in the Torah/Old Testament, they will find that God gave the Prophet Moses the 10 Commandments:
i) An exercise in futility – which of the 10 Commandments did Mohammad NOT break?

4) Another argument that exists is that if Prophet Muhammad was truly inspired by Satan then Satan would order him to jump and kill him self just like how he tried to do with Jesus, Mathew 4:6-7
a) First of all, Satan was testing whether Jesus was the Son of God, to which Jesus replied Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
b) If Satan wanted Jesus to commit suicide, it would be understandable because Jesus brought the Golden rule “Love thy neighbour as yourself”
i) Is this message compatible with Satan and evil?
c) Would Satan want Mohammad to commit suicide after all the things he brought forth to the Muslim world? (See question 3 above)

5) Why would Bukhari include this verse?
a) It;s not a very good start for any religion?
b) Was it to show that Mohammad was a fraud?

Islamic Lie Detector Test:

September 29, 2008

Muslim: Book 001, Number 0176:
It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle (may peace be upon him). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Did he profess” There is no god but Allah,” and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day.
Sa’d said: By Allah, I would never kill any Muslim so long as a person with a heavy belly, i. e., Usama, would not kill. Upon this a person remarked: Did Allah not say this: And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah? Sa’d said: We fought so that there should be no mischief, but you and your companions wish to fight so that there should be mischief.

Mohammad sure knew how to tellif someone was lying – just pluck out their hearts. Amidst this revelation, the Islamic justice system has begun to pluck out the hearts of people in order to find out if they are telling the truth.

1) Why did Mohammad find it necessary to pluck one’s heart out in order to see if they were telling the truth?
a) Was intuition not enough, like Sa’d?
b) How about logic and reasoning skills? (This may be problematic, where Muslims, following Mohammad’s queue in outlwaing chess, may have outlawed any form of thought that involves reasoning abilities –
c) How about evidence?
d) How about from the person’s mouth rather than plucking out his heart to see the truth?

2) Did Allah’s Apostle find it more helpful to talk to inanimate objects like the belly of a dead animal to know the truth?

Tabari VI:66-67: “”We were sitting by an idol a month before the Messenger commenced his mission, having slaughtered camels. Suddenly we heard a voice calling from the belly of one: ‘Listen to the wonder; There will be no more eavesdropping to overhear inspiration; We throw down shooting stars for a prophet in Mecca; His name is Ahmad. His place of emigration is Yathri.’ We held back and marveled; then the Messenger began his mission.”

a) Did Allah’s Apostle find mammalian entrails to be more convincing than oral or written testimony?
b) Why dont more Muslim countries follow Mohammad’s example in adopting this new form of evidence?
c) After all, if the entrails of a dead animal are a full proof method of determining the truth for Mohammad, than it should be good enough for every believer?

3) On a side note, why does the hadith say “There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear.” If Allah means God, than shouldn’t it be “there is no Allah but Allah?”
a) Or, someone with knowledge of classical Arabic can attest to, the Arabic word for God is “Illah” and Allah is the name of one of many gods who lived in the Kabba (Afterall, Mohammad’s father’s name was Abdallah [slave to Allah])
b) When asking the cleric/mullah/other expert, it is best to “tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not”

4) Sa’d makes the point that some Muslims fight just to make mischief?
a) Does that apply today?
b) Did Sahih Muslim include this hadith to show that Muslims were fighting because of blood lust rather than removing mischief, and that ultimately, their fighting caused more mischief than it ended?
c) Does this mean that some Muslims should ACTUALLY start to act like Sa’d and question other Muslims who fight too much?
i) Maybe strapping one’s child to a bomb to blow themselves up may not be the answer to life’s problems?

5) Finally, at the beginning of this hadith, it sates that Mohammad sent his troops on a raiding party.
a) Raids are unprovoked stirkes.
b) Why would Allah’s Apostle raid another party?
c) Why did he want to cause mischief where non-existed?
d) Was Sa’d indirectly accusing the Prophet of causing mischief where none existed?
e) Where are Sa’d’s and Mohammad’s remains?
i) Maybe digging up their hearts will give us the answers we need in determining these questions, by using Mohammad’s bulletproof method of deciphering the truth

Mohammad the witch doctor?

September 17, 2008

Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 65, Number 356:

Narrated Sad:
Allah’s Apostle said, “He who eats seven ‘Ajwa dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them.”

1) Did Mohammad eat these seven ‘Ajwa dates when Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he began to imagine that he had done something although he had not?

a) Did these magic spells only apply to sexual relations with his wife?
Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 89:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Prophet continued for such-and-such period imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations) with his wives, and in fact he did not. One day he said, to me, “O ‘Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), ‘What is wrong with this man? The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ ……

b) Or was it because Mohammad himself was Mohammad using magic spells as an excuse to about how he infact was impotent? “One day he said, to me, “O ‘Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him.” Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 89
c) Why didnt the profit have any other children after Khadija, except for Ibrahim from his slave girl, Mary the Copt?

2) Do all Muslims eat seven ‘Ajwa dates every morning?
3) Why didn’t Mohammad eat 7 Ajwa dates as a cure for the magic curses Labad put on him?
4) How did Mohammad know about magic spells?
a) Did Mohammad dabble in the black arts?

Tabari VI:66
“A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘Show me the seal which is between your shoulders, and if you lie under any enchantment [a demonic curse or spell] I will cure you, for I am the best enchanter [a witch practicing black magic] of the Arabs.’ ‘Do you wish me to show you a sign.’ asked the Prophet. ‘Yes. Summon that cluster.’ So the Prophet looked at a cluster of dates hanging from a palm and summoned it, and began to snap his fingers until it stood before him. Then the man said, ‘Tell it to go back.’ and it went back. The enchanter said, ‘I have never seen a greater magician than I have seen today.'”
b) Does this mean that the enchanter was right to call Mohammad a magician, and the Meccans were also right when they called him a demon possessed sorcerer? (038.004 YUSUFALI: So they wonder that a Warner has come to them from among themselves! and the Unbelievers say, “This is a sorcerer telling lies! “
c) Maybe Mohammad was right about Ajwa dates – he himself is a good magician!

6) Could Mohammad also pull a rabbit out of his turban?
a) Was Mohammad the first person to entertain children at birthday parties with magic tricks?
b) Does this mean that clowns at magic shows are halal?
c) Does this mean that being a sorceror is a noble profession (like the noble Quran)?
d) Does this mean that Muslims should also start celebrating Halloween as a religious holiday in commemoration of Mohammad’s excellent wizardry?

Quran: The Paradox Within

September 16, 2008

By: Khalil Fariel

This is the Book (the quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (pious) [Quran. Chapter 2 Verse 2]

Starting off with verses of Quran, I have a definite contention here that is challenging the authenticity of Quran as god’s uncorrupted book.

Quran being an almighty god’s book and nothing more or less than it is the common Muslim belief, so anything added in it from an outside source will be disproving its authenticity as god’s unalterable writ. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam; was getting revelations from his lord and what Quran about is the sum total of words he obtained through divine route.

Belief goes thus and my contention is against it. There are later additions in Quran that can not be attributed to Muhammad, who is said to have been at the receiving end of revelations. I will prove it from within the perimeters of Quran alone not sourcing anything extraneous.

Before embarking the topic, it is necessary to have a precise understanding of what made Quran we have today a possibility or reality. In absence of such awareness, it is going to be tough to grasp how the verses above and necessarily many other verses of Quran are way erroneous and self refuting. So, let us get into the making of Quran first in brief.

How does or how can one view Quran as of a liberal perspective? Theologically speaking, Quran is the holy book of Muslims to which they attribute divinity. It was not made or slowed down in a single night. As of the fundamental outlook of Muslims, Quran was revealed to Muhammad by god via Gabriel as revelations stage by stage. It took 23 or more years for god of Islam to complete the process of revealing his words. So to be succinct, I would say the context of Quran is the last 23 or more years of Muhammad’s life. It never was a book that one could or did write within a single night.

Moreover, there was not a Quran (as we have today) at the time of Islam’s prophet. Or it was not possible to codify alleged words of an “almighty” into one single book during the time of Muhammad for the reason god continued revealing verses after verses. Muslims argue, the words of god as they are revealed to the prophet had been written down at the same time of revelation in then available means. I am not going to either accept or refute this. Fact however is; a single copy of Quran was not available for reference during the time of prophet. The revelations were written down but they never had been unified into being a single book. That is why we see the first and last revealed verses are not sequenced in Quran. The book is an entirety of various verses amalgamated but chaotically. Thence, what we have today A to Z of Quran is a later totaling that did not have the consent of the man to whom the verses were said to have revealed.

Now, Just go through the verses of Quran I quoted to start this article. It is denotative of a paradox within the Quran: If Quran was not in existence (as we have now) during the time of Prophet Muhammad, how could it be possible for god to refer Quran as a book? These verses are not the sole self referral a reader will go through while examining this book. There are a lot more to add to this and quite interestingly, these statements frilled with challenges are also considered to be god’s words. See such a challenge below:

Say: “If the mankind and the djinns were together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” [Quran: Chapter 17 Verse: 88]

God challenges humankind (and djinns) to produce a Quran. I stress on the word Quran because god is demanding a discomfiting task. If these verses were the last words of god to his beloved prophet, then the claim will have been a little pertinent though not entirely appropriate. According to Mufassirs (Quran interpreters) the last revelation Muhammad had from god is not the above verses, connoting god’s challenge is nonsensical. He should not have made such a challenge until he dispatched his last revelation, or should have waited for his words to get lodged into a single book. And again, this challenge should have been an addendum of Quran not a part of it.

So, my contention is these self referrals and challenges find in Quran are obviously later additions to Quran made by the compilers of it. If I am wrong here, that only results in more reasons to believe Allah was being foolhardy to discharge such and such in quite unbefitting junctures.

Now, for the purpose of reinforcing my contention, I will bring out the verse I quoted earlier again here to scrutinize so a conclusion will be made possible.

We see as early as in the second chapter of Quran:

This is the Book (the quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (pious) [Chapter 2 Verse 2]

Focus on the verses: what is this book referred here by god? Over again, these verses are not the closing remarks of Quran. They have been revealed to Muhammad much earlier and even after obtaining them from his god, Muhammad got blessed with many more revelations. Yet god speaks of a book that is undoubtedly the guidance for pious believers. Which book? There has not been a book yet, but only fragments that are waiting to get accumulated into one..!

There is more to follow:

When I first issued this in FFI forum, it led to heated debates. Arguments against the contention have been: in verses 2:2 God is not referring a book rather it is of what he managed to reveal till then. Hardly has it held water, because verses 2:2 mention a book that serves as guidance to the whole of pious faithful. If God only managed to reveal few but not all at that time, those readily available will seldom serve as true guidance to the pious, because Quran as a whole is what makes absolute guidance, not few of it. To make the guidance for the whole of pious believers, god should reveal the whole of what he wants to reveal, but this particular declaration of Quran’s dignified status comes much earlier. There is no good reason to believe god was just pointing to few verses that he revealed. God had more to say, and he did say more after revealing those verses.

After all, Allah- the god of Muslims is definitely entitled to proclaim of his work but not before the work is done. If he needs such a long time (23 years) to finish off his work, he can not pop up in the middle with bizarre claims and challenges regarding to it. Let the work be done then discharge whatever he wants to acclaim, but god did not follow this logical route. Instead he went for the erroneous alternative to be too premature to release claims on something that has yet to be finished.

How apposite it could be for god to act so prematurely? He is dispatching his revelations to a seventh century Arab in stages and as early in a stage he releases statements as his own on the very work under process; insisting they are too considered to be the part of his divine writ..!

Is it because Allah is irrationally petulant?

In conclusion: The verses find in Quran referring to itself as Quran or divine writ are not the words god revealed to Muhammad who was at the receiving end. Again, the challenge of “to produce a Quran similar to Quran” too should be considered as not exactly god’s own. Quran itself or the “making of Quran in stages as it is stated in it” is very much evidentiary to this conclusion.

Nationalism—A Concept Alien to Islam

September 16, 2008

By U. Mahesh Prabhu

As an egalitarian nation, India has the constitutional obligation to guard the religious liberties of every citizen. Hence, recently, when Mohammad Zubair, a corporal with the Indian Air Force, was ordered to shave off his beard to maintain uniformity, he took no time in moving the country’s judicial system. ‘A true Muslim must keep his beard’, contended Zubair’s attorney, stating that it was an essential part of his faith as per the ‘Hadith’ and ‘Sunna’ (recorded customs). ‘We have the constitutional right to belief and practice of religion,’ he said, seeking protection of his ‘right’ to grow a beard.

But is growing a beard really mandatory in Islam? Yes, the Prophet has said, as reported by Abdullah-ibn-Umar, ‘Act against the polytheist, trim closely the moustache and grow your beard’. Thus, following these directives of the Prophet, Zubair is following his faith. But didn’t the Prophet, in the same statement, also say ‘act against the polytheist…’? Then, if promoted through the ranks, would Zubair not work against the ‘polytheist’ Hindus? Would he not follow the directives of his Prophet then also and seek to kill his ‘polytheist’ countrymen?

For years now, Muslim scholars, intellectuals, and journalists, have complained of ‘deprivation’ and the ‘lack of special privileges’. They have presented in a very viable way as to what it is that they lack. But have they ever spoken gratefully of the privileges they have received? Not that I can remember of!

What people don’t know is that in the righteous context, Islam is totally opposed to the idea of Nation. Nationalism as a concept is absolutely alien to Islam, because it (nationalism) calls for unity based on family and tribalistic ties, whereas Islam binds people together on ‘aqeedah’ (belief in Allah and His last messenger). Islam seeks ideological bonds.

Abu Dawood narrates that the Prophet said, ‘He is not one of us who calls for ‘assabiyyah’ (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for ‘assabiyyah’ or who dies for ‘assabiyyah’. In another Hadith, the Prophet is found stating, ‘Leave it (nationalism, racism, and patriotism), it is rotten.’ [Muslim and Bukhari] and in the Hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabith, the Prophet is found saying ‘Undoubtedly, Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of ‘Jahilliyah’ (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds-either believers who are aware, or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of hellfire. If they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through ‘Khara’ (dung).’ [Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi]

There are many examples in the ‘Seerah’, where the messenger of Allah rebukes those who upheld nationalism. On one occasion, a party of Jews conspired to bring about disunity in the ranks of the Muslims after seeing the ‘Aus’ and ‘Khazraj’, within Islam. A youth was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of ‘Bu’ath’ where the Aus had been victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about differences between them. As a result, there was a call to arms.

When the news reached the Prophet, he is said to have exclaimed, ‘O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honored you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; and made you friends thereby?’

Not only does Islam forbid people from grouping on nationalistic ties, but it also prohibits the establishment of more than one state, irrespective of whether these states are based on nationalism or otherwise. The only state that is allowed for Muslims is the Islamic State, one which is governed exclusively by Islam.

Given this, it is clear that Islam is completely against any nation, and this includes Indian nationalism.

The essential question, that which baffles my mind is: would not tomorrow those ‘devout’ Muslims claim, as their constitutional right, to abstain from their nationalist commitments on the ground that Islam directs them to be so? What would be the stand of our Judiciary then?

Author is Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London (UK).

Mohammad's followers drinking and smearing his ablution water…

September 15, 2008

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 187:
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
Allah’s Apostle came to us at noon and water for ablution was brought to him. After he had performed ablution, the remaining water was taken by the people and they started smearing their bodies with it (as a blessed thing). The Prophet offered two Rakat of the Zuhr prayer and then two Rakat of the ‘Asr prayer while an ‘Anza (spear-headed stick) was there (as a Sutra) in front of him. Abu Musa said: The Prophet asked for a tumbler containing water and washed both his hands and face in it and then threw a mouthful of water in the tumbler and said to both of us (Abu Musa and Bilal), “Drink from the tumbler and pour some of its water on your faces and chests.”

Ablution is the removal of any sexual residue, blood or excrement on a person. Here we see Mohammad’s followers rubbing themselves with that water as a blessed thing, and Mohammad, who after washing his hands, and rinsing his mouth, asking his followers to drink from it. We also know that Mohammad had many semen stains, and would have to continually wash himself of those stains…

1) Why would his followers think of smearing their bodies with his leftover ablution water find it heavenly?
a) Did they think it was a blessing?
b) How could they be blessed by his cleaned up semen stains?
c) Did Allah find Mohammad’s cleaned semen or blood stains to be a blessing?
d) Should all Muslims start smearing themselves in the ablution water of Mohammad’s direct descendants (syeeds) in order to be like their ancestors smearing their bodies with Mohammad’s remaining ablution water and regurgitated rinsing water?
e) Were his followers that fanatical that they would do anything for Mohammad, including blowing themselves up for a chance at paradise to drink from the rivers of wine (which are illegal on earth but not haram in heaven)
i) Think about it, why are the very same vices that would take you to hell allowed in heaven? Is this an allegory of Mohammad that maybe his heaven is really a hell?

2) Why did Mohammad order his companions to drink his regurgitated water?
a) Did he think he was being prophet-like in ordering his followers to drink up the remainder of what they cleaned themselves with?
b) Did he think like he was being like other prophets?
i) For instance, Jesus washed the feet of others. John 13:1-20. The point was that Jesus was to serve his followers. Here Mohammad, who claims to be like all other prophets before him, does the complete opposite by forcing his followers to swallow what he spit out.
ii) Or, was it because he thought this was his version of the Last Supper, where Jesus broke bread in an allegorical way saying it is his body? Matthew 26: 17-46 (NOTE – Jesus did not actually have people eat his body, or drink the remnants of what he washed himself with, but broke bread as a symbolism that his blood was being spilt when he died on the cross for the sins of mankind) (whether you believe this or not is irrlevant, take the point that he did NOT make his followers actually eat drink his blood, eat his body, or drink and smear his ablution water)
iii) No, because the point of all Muslims was to be a slave to Mohammad, and obey all that he said no matter the consequences of wreaking havoc on others.

3) What next?
a) Mohammad proscribing cures of Camel Urine and flies?
b) Oh wait, he already did that: