Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    73d 56m 52s

1 Follower

About Alam_dar

  • Rank
    Marauder from Najafgarh
  • Birthday 08/14/1975

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Alam_dar

    Imran Khan's Naya Pakistan

    Sure there are some Hindus who are able to celebrate Holi in Pakistan, or Christians who are able to celebrate Christmas. But it is also sure that Mullah Mafia has been kidnapping the Hindu girls since decades now, and forcefully marrying them to Muslim boys, and forcefully converting them, and forcefully compelling them to give statements that they have accepted Islam. And nothing significant (or absolutely nothing) has been done against this. Sure you, Imran Khan and many Pakistanis would be against this practice in Pakistan, but still the Mullah Mafia is so strong that Imran Khan becomes quiet at once. And this is sad.
  2. Alam_dar

    Imran Khan's Naya Pakistan

    Sorry, I was busy. But as far as I have read the Pakistani newspapers, then I have not seen this news of conversion of two Hindu girls at the eve of Holi. Perhaps this crime has happened so often now in Pakistan, that people have stopped considering it a crime any more. Sure there were many voices against it in the past, but nothing happened. Not a single Muslim Mullahs was punished for these crimes. Actually, there is a religious Mafia, which is involved in it, and police cannot touch these people.
  3. @Mariyam Well, I understand human sentiments and I know that it may hurt you to read about Hijab issue, and I don't want to hurt you in any way. Still I am curious to know how the Muslim WOMEN react about this issue of Hijab and nakedness of the slave girl in the Sharia. Therefore, if you think you could provide us with feedback without being offended or hurt, then I would be thankful.
  4. Muslims make this excuse that Allah abrogated the limit of 4 wives upon Muhammad, while he had to marry other women from other tribes for political reasons. I went through all their arguments, but they are not satisfactory and not fulfil the criteria of justice. 1) After first 4 marriages, Muhammad married Zaynab bint Jahsh. She was a beautiful woman and her story I described in the post above. There was no political reason to marry her. Muslims say that Muhammad married her in order to show Muslims that adopted sons are not your real sons. But in this case it would have been enough for Muhammad to declare it orally, and there was no need to practically see her naked and then fell in love and then to marry her. 2) Then Muhammad married beautiful woman Juwayriah. Her tribe was already killed by Muhammad and none was left among them who could have challenged Muhammad politically. And Juwayriah was intially the slave of other 2 Muslims, till one day she came to Muhammad, and Aisha didn't like that she meet Muhammad while she feared the beauty of Juwayriah. When Muhammad saw Juwayriah, he immediately offered her if he marries her then he will set her free from the slavery. She accepted the offer. 3) Then Muhammad married Saffiyah. Again his father, brother, husband were slain by Muhammad along with all the men of his tribe and there was none left who could have challenged Muhammad politically. Saffiyah was very young (17 years old, while Muhammad was 56 years old at that time). And she was very beautiful. Initially another companion got Saffiyah as the war booty. But when Muhammad saw the beauty of Saffiyah, then he bought her from another companion by offering her 7 slave girls in exchange. 4) Then comes Umm Habiba. Again she was young and a beautiful women (reference: Sahih Muslim) and there was no political reason to marry her while she had already been a Muslimah for a long time. And the marriage took place after the victory of Mecca when Muhammad already had got all the political control. 5) Then came other less known wives of Muhammad like Maria and some others who died soon in the life time of Muhammad. 6) Muhammad married only 2 old women (Khadija and Sawda). Khadija was his first wife, and she was very rich, while Muhammad was very poor at that time. And 2nd wife of Muhammad was Sawda. At that time Muhammad was in Mecca and in very bad situation while people of Mecca turned against him. At that time Muhammad needed a woman to look after his household and small children (Fatima). Sawda married him and helped him with all these challenges. But when Muhammad got other beautiful wives later in Madina, then Muhammad again played the Drama of revealing a new Verse which gave Muhammad the right to divorce any of his wife without any reason. Due to this threat of divorce, Sawda gave her turn (night turn) to beautiful and young Aisha, and asked Muhammad not to divorce her in that old age. Muhammad accepted her proposal. Actually it was an injustice against the poor Sawda. She served Muhammad well, but Muhammad wanted to divorce her for being old.
  5. I think you mean why Muslim man are allowed to marry only 4 wives, while Muhammad himself married with 11 wives? Am I right? To answer your question: (1) Muhammad had not only 11 wives, but he also had 23 slave women. (2) Very important point to note, Muhammad put the limit of 4 wives in 4th Hijri year (after migrating to Madina). It was due to the reason that Muhammad had himself only 4 wives at this time. This was the time when Muslims lost the battle of Uhad, and things were not looking so good for them. At that time Muhammad revealed the verses in name of Allah, that only 4 wives are allowed for the Muslim men. This limitation of 4 wives was also for Muhammad too at that time. (3) But after the war of Trench (5th Hijri year), the situation became good for Muslims while Muslims won the war against Meccans, and also they attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah and killed all the men, and got a lot of women prisoners from there. (4) Moreover, another incident also took place at the same time when Muhammad went to see his adopted son Zayd. But he was not present at home, and his wife Zaynab was naked at home and Prophet saw her in this state (Reference: History of Tabari). At that time Muhammad fall in love with Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son. When Zayd came to know about it, he divorced his wife so that Muhammad could marry her. Thus Muhammad did the drama of revelation of 2 Verses from Allah: * The first verse was this that adopted sons are not your real sons. Thus marriage with their divorced wife is allowed. * And 2nd verse was this that limitation of 4 wives has been "abrogated" for Muhammad, and now Muhammad was allowed to marry more women. * After the revelation of these 2 verses, Muhammad married Zaynab, and then other women too. Muhmmad's age was 55 to 59 years at that time when he married his 5th wife to 11th wife. And none of these wives were old, but all of them were young and beautiful women. If you wish, then I could write the whole article with all the related references. Just let me know.
  6. Muslims wonder how could divine Allah not rebuke those people in Quran for molesting the slave girls, but in some sense granting them the license to molest them? And I have to tell them that there existed no Divine Allah, but Muhammad created the character of Allah himself, and thus Muhammad ordered many more such shameful things which are impossible from a Divine Creature. For example: * Muhammad (or his invented character of Allah) also allowed the Muslims to rape the prisoner girls in name of slavery. * Muhammad (or his invented character of Allah) also allowed the Muslims to even rape the prisoner girls the same night, after killing their fathers/brothers/husbands/sons in the war. Is there any thing more tyrant than this when the father/sons/brothers/husband are slaughtered of a woman, and she is compelled to have sex on the same night? Just look at this tradition to see the trauma of such girls: The History of al-Tabari, vol.8, page 122 (Link): Among these two women, Safiyyah was a beautiful woman, and Muhammad took her as his wife the next day after slaying his father,brother and husband. And that is what happened: The History of al-Tabari, Volume XXXIX (39), p. 185: I don't think any thing could surpass this tyranny.
  7. I have neither read the novel, nor watched the film. Should I watch it?
  8. And this is the worst part. Even if some one is not insulting any Islamic personality, but only criticizing Islam is enough for Muslims to issue the fatwa of Blasphemy and kill the person by using this lame excuse. Good thing is this that killing people like me is going to make no difference any more, while Media has become so fast, that it is impossible to stop this criticism. Only way left for Muslims is to answer this criticism with their own proofs (if they have any). Up till now I have not seen any proofs from the Muslim side, but they start only abusing, or start threatening to kill. I don't think this is going to solve problems for them.
  9. Believe me, it has absolutely nothing to do with how many years one is residing at any place. If religion could make Muslims blind who are living in advanced and educated European countries, then surely the same religion could have more fatal results in the non-educated areas like India. But if we don't see this in the present India, but instead of this we are watching even Mullahs of Deoband, raising slogans of "Long live Secularism", then it is not due to the religion of Islam, but due to the external reasons. Is there any difference between the Indian Muslim and a Pakistani Muslim? Do you know that 90% Pakistani Muslims want absolutely imposition of the Sharia upon themselves and upon the others? You said that Indian Muslim don't want Sharia to be imposed on him. But why then Pakistani Muslim want to impose the Shari upon himself and the others? I am not saying that you are wrong about the Indian Muslims. You may be absolutely correct that Indian Muslims perhaps don't want Sharia. But this change didn't occur in one day, but Indian Muslims evolved in this way (different than Pakistan Muslims) due to the "external" pressures. You could not even imagine how the Deobandi Mullahs and followers behave in Pakistan. Even if some liberal asks to not to impose the 14 centuries old Sharia law, then they immediately issue a fatwa of Kufr against such person. Result is this that not only 90% want Sharia themselves, but they have frightened the rest of minorities and 10% that they don't have any courage to even speak up for the Secular laws. And the main reason is this that Religious Teachings are very clear that no other laws will be accepted than the Sharia laws. I will make a new post upon it in order to clear all the religious teachings regarding this issue. Off course you are right, and I fully agree with you. But I am not stating my own opinion here, but I am stating the harsh ground realities of what is going to happen on the field. And harsh reality is this that once the wave of Right Wing Extremism starts in Europe, and gets popularity, then they will definitely (and very unfortunately) go for the Collective Punishment of the Muslim community. It will be the same as in India, or as in Burma. I absolutely don't wish any Collective Punishment, which is against the Humanity. I oppose this European right wing extremism, I oppose the Saffron brigade in India, I oppose extremist Buddhists. But situation is not in the control of the European Left Wing, which has become weaker due to the killings of European citizens by extremist Muslims and due to the misuse of the Western System by these extremist Muslims. If we want to make the Left Wing of Europe again stronger, then the only path goes where the Kafirophobia should end, and the Muslim community should integrate with the European society. But it this Kafirophobia does not end, then right wing will surely take the control sooner or later.
  10. For this part, please see other history books, according to which there was no trench dug where the Banu Qurayzah resided. The Trench was dug only on the North and North West side of Madina. Here is the map: https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/غزوہ_خندق مدینہ کے اردگرد پہاڑ تھے اور گھر ایک دوسرے سے متصل تھے جو ایک قدرتی دفاعی فصیل کا کام کرتے تھے۔ ایک جگہ کوہِ عبید ہ اور کوہ راتج کے درمیان میں سے حملہ ہو سکتا تھا اس لیے وہاں خندق کھودنے کا فیصلہ کیا گیا۔ اس کی کھدائی میں حضور صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ وسلم سمیت سب لوگ شریک ہوئے۔
  11. Hijab was not introduced in Islam for modesty reasons, but for discrimination and extreme insult and inhuman behaviour against the slave women. Real facts are: * Islamic Sharia allowed only the "free" women to wear Hijab and cover their chests. * While if any "slave" women took the Hijab, then the Government officials used to beat them and used to take Hijab away from their heads and made their chests again naked. * Caliph Umar used to beat the slave girls personally for taking Hijab, while telling them that Hijab is only the "right" and "honour" of the free Muslim ladies. All authentic and approved Islamic theology and Shariah legal texts, agree upon these points. Let us see the proofs. Under the commentary of this Verse, all Muslim authorities like Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Qatadah, Kalbi, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi, Mujahid etc. unanimously wrote that this verse was revealed while people of Madina (i.e. companions) used to sit on the side of the streets and used to molest all the women who passed from there. But later they stopped to molest the free women (while the molestation of the slave girls continued), while they were using the Hijab and thus people recognised them as free Muslim women. (Reference: Tafsir-e-Tabari verse 33:59 where all these traditions are present) — Tafsir Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE) (link): While explaining the background of this verse Ibn Kathīr, the celebrated commentator of the Qur'ān, records the opinion of Suddī in the following words : Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary of Verse 33:59 (link): Then Ibn Kathir records further the opinion of Mujāhid in the following words: This is a dirty dirty thing where Muhammad's Allah didn't rebuke these mischief-mongers (who were actually Companions), but instead of this gave them a license in one way or another to harass and molest the poor slave women. Note: Before the revelation of this verse, all the women (free or slave) didn't use to cover their chests, but used to move in the society with naked chests. Ibn Kathir writes in commentary of verse 24:31 (link): Difference between "Khimar" and "Jilbab" Khimar was a big garment sheet/cloak, which free Muslim women used to put on their head and cover their face, throat and chest. Only free Muslim women were allowed to use Jilbab. While Khimar was a small head scarf (like the one Arab people use today to cover their heads). It was allowed for the slave women to wear this traditional Khimar on head, but no Jilbab, and they were compelled to let their chests naked. Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat salve girls for taking Jilbab (Hijab) According to the Sahih (authentic) traditions, Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat the slave girls for taking Jilbab (Hijab), by telling them that Hijab is only the "right" and "honour" of the free Muslim women. Grand Saudi Mufti Albani recorded in his book Arwa al-Ghalil this Sahih (authentic) tradition (link): This same tradition has also been recorded by Ibn Qalaba (link). And Imam Abdul Razzaq (d. 211 hijri year) recorded (link): Imam Shaibani (died 189 Hijri year) wrote in his book Al-Mabsoot, vol 3, page 7 (link): And Abdul Razzaq recorded from Ibn Jarih (died 150 Hijri year) Link: And Albani, the grand Saudi Mufti, wrotes in his book Irwaa al-Ghalil (link): Conclusion: If only Muslim women (who take Hijab today) come to know about this Truth, then they would themselves leave this Hijab, which is not a sign of modesty, but a sign of extreme discrimination and insult to the slave women. Unfortunately, Mullahs are very successful in hiding the true face of Islam. It is our duty to make world aware of the true face of Islam, so that humanity could win.
  12. Exactly. And my war is against the religion. If it is demolished, or even compelled to reform, then automatically this Kafirophobia and all the evils related to it will come to an end.
  13. Please understand, it is not about an individual person. There may be a lot of Muslims who may be much better human being than us as individuals. Here we are talking about the problem on the Community level i.e. the influence of the Kafirophobia. You see, Imran Khan and Erdogan pointed out the disease of Islamophobia. Muslims have no problems with it while they claim that at community level this problem exists. We say welcome to their criticism and accept that indeed the problem of Islamophobia is present and indeed there are Westerner people who fear Islam, and thus they indeed turned against the Muslims too. But why when we criticize the Muslim community due to the Kafirophobia, then you don't welcome it? Why when we tell you that many Muslims are becoming killers due to Kafirophobia, while others are not integrating to this same Kafirophobia, then you deny us? Thus, my original question still stays there, what is the source of this Kafirophobia? You told us that Media was the source of Islamophobia. But what is the source of Kafirophobia? Please answer this simple question.
  14. It is not about spreading of the state through force and bloodshed, but it is the question of Humanity and Justice by the Prophet Muhammad himself. If the Muhammad himself fails the litmus test of Humanity, and proves to be a barbaric killer, then whole religion of Islam itself proves to be falsehood. Conquering land does not mean being Divine. Ashoka the great conquered more land (at least people) than Khalid. Rest Buddhism spread in China, Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka through preaching. Genhiz khan also united the tribes and his grandsons conquered more lands than Khalid bin Waleed. As compared to Khalid bin Waleed, there were many Prophets and Messengers of Allah who were unable to make one person monotheist and unable to conquer even a single inch of land. In fact, these Prophets and Messengers were brutally killed by the people and Allah was unable to do any thing. And testimony of this is itself present in Quran. For example: (Quran 2:91) قُلْ فَلِمَ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنبِیَاءَ اللّہِ مِن قَبْلُ إِن کُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِیْن. Translation: If you were believers, why then you used to kill the Prophets? Also see Quran 2:87 where Quran is testifying the killing of the Messengers (Rasool). Remember, Rasools are ahead in merits than prohets. So, should we believe that Khalid bin Waleed was above than these messengers and prophets?
  15. Ok, then let me translate: Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman… He [Muhammad] said to me, "O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they're up to, and don't say a word until you return." So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah were doing what they were doing – not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb stood up and said, "O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him [in fear of spies]." So I took the hand of the man next to me and said, "Who are you?" He replied, "I am someone the son of someone." So Abu Sufyan said, "O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have died, Bani Qurayza has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren't standing, the fires aren't lasting, and the structures aren't holding. So retreat for I am retreating." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 2283) Muslim Ulama declared this tradition to be SAHIH (i.e. Authentic). Link. Remember, there was no trench in the area of Banu Qurayzah. If they really wanted to deceive Muslims, then they only had to allow the 10,000 strong army of Meccans to attack the Muslims from their side. But they didn't. But still Muhammad slaughtered them all.

Guest, sign in to access all features.