SheikhYoBooty

TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam What does the Religion of Peace Teach About... The Sex Life of the Prophet Question: Was Islam's "perfect man" sexually restrained? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbD2BZZsMbY Summary Answer: The Quran (which was narrated by Muhammad) refers to Muhammad's life as "as beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah" (33:21) and "an exalted standard of character" (68:4). Yet, thanks to Allah's extraordinary interest in his personal sex life (as immortalized in the Quran) the prophet of Islam had sex with just about anyone he pleased. Although the Qur'an didn't appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren't), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary). Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son's wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The Qur'an: Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance. Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...? Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism. Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims. Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives?... Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths " Another remarkably personal passage of sexual convenience in a book billed as Allah's perfect and eternal message to mankind. Muhammad was caught sleeping with a slave woman on the night that he was supposed to be with one of his wives. Initially promising to be faithful, "Allah" tells his prophet to break that promise and enjoy sex with his slaves. If his wives objected then "it may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you." Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle. From the Hadith: Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions. Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her). Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her. Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child. Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans. Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period. Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating. Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why. Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' " Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly). Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together. Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him. Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself. Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted). Additional Notes: Muhammad's sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet's consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile. Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age. The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30's when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don't know the age of Muhammad's sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating. Prior to the medical advances of the last century, marriage occurred at a much younger age across all societies. When life expectancy was in the mid 20's (or lower), it made no sense to wait until 19 to start having children; otherwise, one ran the risk of not being around to raise them. In short, childhood as we know it was abbreviated by the reality of the times. Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn't say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles - thus entering into "womanhood." It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this. On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses," meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, "a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman"... but that's just us). Thanks to Muhammad's extremely poor judgment (at best) and explicit approval of pedophilia, sex with children became deeply ingrained in the Islamic tradition. For many centuries, Muslim armies would purge Christian and Hindu peasant villages of their menfolk and send the women and children to harems and the thriving child sex slave markets deep in the Islamic world. When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: "It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration until the baby is a few years older). In April, 2010, a 13-year-old Yemeni girl died from injuries suffered to her womb during "intercourse". Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process known as "thighing" (also known as child molestation in the West). According to a recent fatwa (number 23672), an imam answers this question: "My parents married me to a young girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?" by telling the 'man' that he may "hug her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her legs." A prominent member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council said in 2012 that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle," then went on to explain that intercourse may occur whenever "they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the man." Muhammad's penchant for girls so much younger than him was such that at least two of his father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Omar, the first two Caliphs) were actually younger than him as well. This disappointing pattern is very much at odds with the sort of sexual discipline that one might expect of a true "prophet of God." Muhammad's pursuit of Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son is almost as tough for Muslims to explain. This is because it not only raises a similar question of moral character, but also casts suspicion on whether his so-called prophecies were really divine revelation or dictates of personal convenience. According to one biographer, even Aisha appears to be somewhat doubtful of Muhammad's claim that Allah commanded him to marry Zaynab, wryly remarking, "Truly Allah seems to be very quick in fulfilling your prayers." So controversial was Muhammad's desire to marry his adopted son's wife that he had to justify it with a stern pronouncement from Allah on the very institution of adoption, which has had tragic consequences to this day. Verses 33:4-5 are widely interpreted to imply that Islam is against adoption, meaning that an untold number of children in the Islamic world have been needlessly orphaned - all because Muhammad's lustful desires for a married woman went beyond even what the other six wives that he possessed at the time and a multitude of slaves could satisfy. Some Muslims deny that Muhammad was married to more than four women at a time, merely on the basis that the Qur'an only gives permission for marrying four. Unfortunately, Muslims historians disagree. Only one of Muhammad's last eleven wives died before him (Zaynab bint Khuzayma). The rest outlived him by many years. Muhammad forbade his ten widows from remarrying, even making sure that this "divine" order was forever preserved in the eternal word of Allah - Qur'an (33:53). To add insult to injury, they were all summarily disinherited from Muhammad's estate by his successor (courtesy of another divine order "given" to Abu Bakr from Allah). In summary, Islam's holiest texts portray Muhammad not as a perfect man, but as a sexual hedonist. Not only did he become fat from indulging in food, but his pursuit of sex was no less gluttonous. On top of it all, he used personal "revelations" from Allah to justify his debauchery to the gullible masses which, to this day, continue to be venerated and memorized as if they are the holiest of utterances. Further Reading: Was Muhammad a Pedophile? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCz9MXmcsw

Very true ASKhalsa1 as not a single Muslim yet has ever managed to answer the challenge from Dr Ali Sina a brave apostate who left Islam https://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam What does the Religion of Peace Teach About... Violence Question: Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence? Summary Answer: The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history. The Quran: Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..." Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims. Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians). Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith. Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer? Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam). Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).) Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?" Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse. Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations. Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell. Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16. Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad. Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org From the Hadith: Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings. Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror' Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist) Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'." Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes." Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..." Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!" Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'" Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)." Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)." Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim. Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’” Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid. Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief. Additional Notes: Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism. The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, then things change. Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran plainly says. They reach subjectively for textual context across different suras to try and mitigate the harsher passages. Even though the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, Muslim apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret the verses without their "assistance." Like many religious people, they want the text to fit their pre-established moral framework. Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran. So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself. Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered. It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad. Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage"). One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life." The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect." Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source) Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day. The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism. This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way. Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this. Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest. For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous. There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

How do u explain then Jagsaw only 20% of the people living in Surrey happen to be Sikh if its such a bad ghetto? There are about half a million people overall living in Surrey BC and about 100,000 are Sikhs. Half the people living in Surrey are white dude if only u had ever been to Surrey + they do most of the crime/drugs at street level alongside some Vietnamese + Muslims mainly around Newton. Sure some Jatts drop other Jatts to control supply now + then but the actual Sikh community is happy with dealers getting dropped as they are not Sikh. Sure a few spoilt rich Jatt kids have dreams of being wannabe gangsters after watching the Soprano's but Surrey is middle class suburbia as the Jatt criminals are not Sikhs as the only identity the dealers care about is being Jatt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0grsuDVff8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCqtVqaz990 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX83jA77zCc

^ Bro I agree that one can be a Khalsa (formerly of ethnic Jatt tribal lineage) but I hope u agree that one cannot actively be Jatt, Tarkhan, Rajput, Gujjar etc at the same time in spirit (regardless of biological ancestry). As obviously the only names the Khalsa Panth can bear are Singh and Kaur. Also given that some research is now showing that our Guru Hargobind Ji ki Mahal was of Jatt ancestry, Guru Ram Das Ji was not of Khatri ancestry, nor were Trehan and Bhalla originally thought of as Khatri clans and Mata Gujjar Kaur were of Gujjar ancestry, the whole Mughal and Hindutva lie that our Guru Sahib were so-called Khatri's comes crashing apart. Basicly because Guru Nanak Dev Ji were undeniably of Khatri ancestry, writers co-opted subsequent Guru Sahibaan and Guru Ki Mahal as being of the same ancestry when the factual reality for that was not really there.

^Bro, our Guru Sahib were not Khatri as they had no caste + they hated the caste system. Our Guru Sahibaan all emphasised repeatedly on "kul nash" = the importance of having no lineage pride. I believe that u are an honest Gursikh and don't see yourself as superior to any other Sikh. So i can understand that u view Jatts as an ethnic tribe as opposed to an occupational caste. But tribe (if u don't mind me saying as I like most ur posts) still comes under the radar of being destroyed by kul nash. http://sikhinstitute.org/akal_takht08/baljika.html

Lets just go thru the Macleans article you're relying on Jagsaw. Macleans are not CBC or the BBC. The article clearly shows that non-BC Sikhs don't attract the same negative stereotyping to such a degree and it also clearly shows that Sikhs are NOT the most hated group of people in Canada. 1000 people hardly represents just under 40 million Canadians, the majority respect or have nothing against Sikhs (though nobody not even Sikhs ourselves likes the idiotic minority of BC gangster wannabe's) Macleans worked hand in glove with the GOI to falsely blame the Air India bomb attack on Sikhs when it was actually conducted by RAW to defame Sikhi, with Congress planting clowns to claim it at Nagar Kirtans to discredit us. Even then, where the BC bud trade is at its worst only 30% of non-Sikhs in BC link Sikhs with violence in BC (but not in AB or ON where together there are more Sikhs there than BC nowadays). 70% of BC folks don't hate Sikhs when voting peeps like Ujjal Singh Dosanjh in as the Premier of the entire Province of BC. This is how most Canadians view Sikhs. Ghettosikh and Ranjeet01 were totally right in what they said. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-canadians-think-of-sikhs-jews-christians-muslims/ The poll, by Angus Reid Strategies, surveyed 1,002 randomly selected Canadians on religion at a moment when issues of identity are a hot topic in Ottawa. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has led a push by the Conservative government to revamp citizenship law, emphasizing the need for real bonds to Canada, and Kenney is looking for ways to encourage immigrants to integrate faster and more fully into Canadian society. But as federal policy strives to encourage newcomers to put down roots and fit in, the poll highlights an equal need for the Canadian majority to take a hard look at its distorted preconceptions about religious minorities. “It astonishes and saddens me as a Canadian,” said Angus Reid chief research officer Andrew Grenville, who has been probing Canadians’ views on religion for 16 years. “I don’t think the findings reflect well on Canada at all.” Those findings leave little doubt that Canadians with a Christian background travel through life benefiting from a broad tendency of their fellow citizens to view their religion more favourably than any other. Across Canada, 72 per cent said they have a “generally favourable opinion” of Christianity. At the other end of the spectrum, Islam scored the lowest favourability rating, just 28 per cent. Sikhism didn’t fare much better at 30 per cent, and Hinduism was rated favourably by 41 per cent. Both Buddhism, at 57 per cent, and Judaism, 53 per cent, were rated favourably by more than half the population—but even Jews and Buddhists might reasonably ask if that’s a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty result. When asked if they thought “the mainstream beliefs” of the major religions “encourage violence or are mostly peaceful,” only 10 per cent said they thought Christianity teaches violence. But fully 45 per cent said they believe Islam does, and a sizable 26 per cent saw Sikhism as encouraging violence. By comparison, just 13 per cent perceived violence in Hindu teachings and 14 per cent in Jewish religion. A tiny four per cent said they think of Buddhism as encouraging violence. Clearly, Islam and Sikhism face the highest hurdles when it comes to persuading many Canadians they are not inherently violent faiths. The problem varies across regions. By far the highest percentage who viewed Islam as encouraging violence was found in Quebec, 57 per cent. Sikh doctrine is mostly likely to be viewed as violent in the province where about half of Canadian Sikhs live: 30 per cent of British Columbians said they think Sikhism encourages violence. Palbinder Shergill, a Vancouver lawyer who has long represented the World Sikh Organization of Canada on legal matters, said she might have expected such negative opinions about Sikhism in the 1990s. Back then, the 1985 Air India bombing, FALSELY PORTRAYED AS the work of Sikh separatist terrorists, was still a fresh memory. “Air India has had a very lasting negative legacy for the Sikh community,” Shergill said. “The majority of imagery of Sikhs in the media typically associates the community with that sort of violence.” Patient work trying to overcome the widespread view of Sikhs as dangerous seemed to be paying off, she said—until recently. Shergill said Sikhs have lately faced a “huge resurgence” of the sorts of challenges to their distinctive practices that they thought were put to rest 15 years or so ago. In Ontario, a Sikh man is fighting in court for the right to wear a turban, but not a helmet, when he rides his motorcycle. In Montreal last week, Judge Gilles Ouellet found a Sikh boy guilty of having threatened two other boys with a hair pin, used to keep his hair neat under his turban. But Ouellet said the boy didn’t use his kirpan, the small symbolic dagger many Sikh men carry. The judge gave him an unconditional discharge, leaving him with a clean record, and said the case would never have reached his bench if the incident hadn’t had a religious dimension. “Too much importance has been given this case,” he said. “This matter should end here.” Shergill suspects that many more Canadians read about the initial charge being laid than the remarks of the obviously frustrated judge. And the fact that this episode unfolded in Quebec is not incidental. The province appears to be an incubator of deep suspicions concerning minority faiths. Leaders of religious groups contacted by Maclean’s commonly said their impression is that urban attitudes are more open, especially in Toronto and Vancouver—huge magnets for immigrants. Yet familiarity does not appear to be a reliable predictor of tolerance or acceptance. The Sikh community is prominent on the West Coast, but only 28 per cent of British Columbians surveyed reported a favourable impression of Sikhism. That was well below the figures in provinces where Sikhs are far less numerous, like neighbouring Alberta, where 47 per cent reported a favourable opinion of Sikhism, or Ontario, where Sikhism was rated favourably by 35 per cent. To try to assess the extent and impact of friendships between Canadians of different faiths, Angus Reid asked, “Do you personally have any friends who are followers of any of these religions or not?” Not surprisingly, given that seven out of 10 Canadians identify themselves as Catholic or Protestant, the vast majority, 89 per cent, said they have Christian friends. Less predictably, given that only two per cent of the population follows Islam, fully 32 per cent of respondents claimed they have a Muslim friend. Only 16 per cent nationally reported having Sikh friends, but 36 per cent of British Columbians do. Across Canada, 45 per cent reported having Jewish friends, from a high of 61 per cent in Ontario to a low of 20 per cent in Quebec. Digging into that data, Angus Reid checked to see if those who claimed to have friends of a particular religion tended to view that faith more positively. There is a correlation. Among those who said they don’t have any Muslim friends, a mere 18 per cent reported that their opinion of Islam is generally favourable. But among those who said they do have Muslim friends, 44 per cent had a favourable opinion of Islam. For all other religions, well over half of the pool of people who have friends of a certain faith view that faith favourably: for example, 63 per cent of those with Sikh friends view Sikhism favourably, compared with just 23 per cent of those without Sikh friends. And 76 per cent of Canadians with Jewish friends are favourably disposed toward Judaism, while only 34 per cent of people with no Jewish friends have a favourable opinion of Judaism. Beyond personal contact with adherents of different religions, there’s the question of whether Canadians really know much about what the various faiths profess. Asked about their level of knowledge, 86 per cent said they have a “good basic understanding” of Christianity, compared to just 32 per cent who make the same claim regarding Islam, 18 per cent for Hinduism, 12 per cent for Sikhism, 32 per cent for Buddhism and 40 per cent for Judaism. Predictably Sikhs have a poor ability at explaining the faith compared to Muslims and do come bottom of this list but elsewhere its clear that Sikhs aren't the most hated people in Canada as Jagsaw would gleefully like to claim! These are a typical selection of properties where most Sikhs live in the hell hole called Surrey described by Jagsaw http://www.jaysidhu.ca/mls_surrey-houses-for-sale.html Property Details Request More Info Request for Showing Mortgage Calculator 8516 134TH ST Queen Mary Park Surrey, Surrey, BCV3W 6Y6 CENTRALLY LOCATED, Large 8400 sqft lot with 7 bedrooms, basement entry home in a lovely quiet dead end street. Features 5 bathrooms, cozy f/p, tile roof, skylights, upgraded b.... MLS® No F1428377 Price: $719,000 Type House/Single Family Bedrooms 7 Bathrooms 5 Area 3,821 Sq.Ft. Listed By: HomeLife Benchmark Titus Rlty Property Details Request More Info Request for Showing Mortgage Calculator 14763 79TH AV East Newton, Surrey, BCV3S 2T8 Quality built house (2x6 Construction) 3 level in beautiful and quiet area of Chimney Heights. This great home features 2 masterbdrm and 2 bdrm above & 3 baths upstairs. .... MLS® No F1421686 Price: $724,000 Type House/Single Family Bedrooms 6 Bathrooms 6 Area 3,922 Sq.Ft. Listed By: Sutton Group-West Coast Realty Property Details Request More Info Request for Showing Mortgage Calculator 10121 172 ST Fraser Heights, Surrey, BCV4N 4W6 Beautiful two storey home on a landscaped, west back yard lot close to Pacific Academy. Main floor has spacious living room with gas fire place, hardwood in L/R & D/R. Den.... MLS® No F1432060 Price: $709,000 Type House/Single Family Bedrooms 3 Bathrooms 4 Area 2,271 Sq.Ft. Listed By: Royal LePage West R.E.S. (Sur) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj24Oz1MuCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FE-0oZhbRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcseLbEYtLg

Good luck sister. We all support you (apart from a few lunatics that oppose Gurmat + Sikhi). I hope you will post marriage pics of you and this Gursikh when the time comes. All of us will do Ardas that your parents support you in your correct decision to marry this Gursikh according to Sanjog. Best wishes

Bro i respect that u are a good dude that doesn't like for anybody's feelings to be hurt but this '68 dude deliberately uses Bhai Randhir Singh Ji's picture as a deliberate insult and to give credibility to his underlying anti-Sikh posts. He thinks that the Genocide of Sikhs was God's will that God actively wanted to happen. You're correct that none of us has the right to define who is or isn't Sikh in spiritual terms but he openly states that he is not a Sikh and is just a Jatt. Good people deserve compassion. Aurangzeb, Indira Gandhi and those that get pleasure + amusement from the rape of innocent young girls like '68 don't deserve compassion. Instead we should care for the innocent rape victims he insulted more than the feelings of a troll like him. Trust me, as the biggest fattest troll on this site, i should know! :biggrin2:

So Qwe123 as a Pakistani Muslim yourself u must be very proud that Somali + Pakistani's are in top 6 of crime, huh? Obviously a further source of your pride must be that Pakistani Muslims lead the tables in cases of sexual grooming. Well i'm glad u finally have something to be proud of at long last. Are u also proud of Prophet Muhammad being a pedophile + rapist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCz9MXmcsw TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam What does the Religion of Peace Teach About... The Sex Life of the Prophet Question: Was Islam's "perfect man" sexually restrained? Summary Answer: The Quran (which was narrated by Muhammad) refers to Muhammad's life as "as beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah" (33:21) and "an exalted standard of character" (68:4). Yet, thanks to Allah's extraordinary interest in his personal sex life (as immortalized in the Quran) the prophet of Islam had sex with just about anyone he pleased. Although the Qur'an didn't appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren't), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary). Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son's wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The Qur'an: Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance. Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...? Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those slaves whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism. Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims. Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives?... Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths " Another remarkably personal passage of sexual convenience in a book billed as Allah's perfect and eternal message to mankind. Muhammad was caught sleeping with a slave woman on the night that he was supposed to be with one of his wives. Initially promising to be faithful, "Allah" tells his prophet to break that promise and enjoy sex with his slaves. If his wives objected then "it may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you." Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle. From the Hadith: Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions. Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her). Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her. Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child. Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans. Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period. Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating. Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why. Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' " Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly). Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together. Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him. Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself. Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted). Additional Notes: Muhammad's sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet's consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile. Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age. The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30's when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don't know the age of Muhammad's sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating. Prior to the medical advances of the last century, marriage occurred at a much younger age across all societies. When life expectancy was in the mid 20's (or lower), it made no sense to wait until 19 to start having children; otherwise, one ran the risk of not being around to raise them. In short, childhood as we know it was abbreviated by the reality of the times. Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn't say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles - thus entering into "womanhood." It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this. On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses," meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, "a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman"... but that's just us). Five of the main culprits in the Rotherham abuse scandal: Mohsin Khan, 21, Razwan Razaq, 30, Adil Hussain, 20, Zafran Ramzan, 21, Umar Razaq, 24 Rotherham, 1400 and more cases of abuse documented over a period of 16 years. The victims were children, mostly in care, mostly white. The perpetrators were all of Pakistani Muslim heritage.

But u would say that Qwe123 because you're a Pakistani Muslim yourself

Wow so Hindu Jatt 1968 quotes Dasam Granth. I don't have a phobia of hindu's just Hindu Jatts like yourself who come on this site to deliberately mock + distort Sikhi. And yes i do hate a Hindu Jatt like yourself for finding pleasure + amusement in the rape of innocent young girls. There is a Troll Union because I set it up in December 2014 + launched it when this Muslim troll tried to diss Sikhi. Then this Hindu Jatt 1968 started to attack Sikhi with snide comments after the Pakistani Muslim troll was exposed. Do u think that HinduJatt68 who finds amusement+pleasure in the rape of innocent young girls is holding legit views?

Wow u are so independent minded and such a free thinker dude. Your Jatt parents didn't like u dating a girl from your caste due to her religion so u broke it off. And there was the whole forum reading that u don't believe in any religion and are not Sikh but only a Jatt. Wow so these hindu caste system supporting families look down upon those who believe in Gurmat + Rehat Maryada + Manas ki jaath sabhe ek pechaanbo. The original poster sbhullar clearly does not have multiple boyfriends but during the course of her studies developed a platonic (which means non-physical and non-sexual) friendship with a Gursikh who she rightly wants to marry. The only people that the Sikh community regards as kanjar parivaars are those who go against Gurmat in constantly supporting the hindu caste system, whilst always standing up as a mouthpice for Pakistan + Islam at the same time.

Waljinder Singh, you are totally correct. Hindu Jatt 1968 is a fully paid up member of the troll society (as it takes one to know one). Here this Hindu Jatt 1968 laughs at the rape of innocent girls. His continual aim on this website is to mock + distort Sikhi. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/76484-two-minors-gang-raped-in-separate-incidents-in-punjab/

Hindu Jatt 1968 now that you are 47 years old and still a virgin why dont u find urself a nice Hindu Jatti? At least then u could kindly leave this site free of your posts where u laugh at the rape of innocents? http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/76484-two-minors-gang-raped-in-separate-incidents-in-punjab/ One troll should always listen to another. Now that everyone knows u are a Hindu Jatt troll why dont u spare us the continual bs in your posts?

This Khem Bedi that was Amitabh's ancestor was notoriously very anti-Sikh. Khem Bedi hated Giani Ditt Singh + the (Lahore) Singh Sabha with a passion as they were revitalising the Sikh Panth. Khem Bedi had his own competing Sanatan Sabha which claimed Sikhs were Hindu's. Khem Bedi was paid large sums by the British to undermine the Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar and the true Singh Sabha movement. The Arya Samaj and British paid him handsomely to strenghten anti-Gurmat practices in the Gurdwaras led by the Hindu Mahants. Wherever he went he used to openly preach that Sikhs were Hindus. He used verses from Bachittar Natak to force ordinary Sikhs (that only believed in accepting Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj) to think that the Gurus were descendents of Hindu King Ram Chandra's children as Bedi's + Sodhi's. He claimed that the Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the fifth veda of the Hindus + that Sikhs should revere the Vedas of the Hindu's as, according to him, our Guru Sahiban did so in their previous lives, as stated in the Bachittar Natak. He was widely disliked by the Sikh Panth, but on the back of the finances from the British and his wealthy Arya Samaj friends, he set up a Sodhak Committee in 1897 of his hand picked people, to consolidate 32 wildly different versions of the Bachittar Natak which had been introduced into Punjab from Bengal via Hindu Mahants to whom the British supplied drugs like opium and prostitutes between 1875 and 1900. It was Khem Bedi who personally decided that Benti Chaupai was best positioned next to Triya Charitar on the advice of Arya Samaj friends. Khem Bedi's two sons Kartar and Gurbaksh also merit mention as they were staunch opponents of Bhai Kartar Singh Jhabbar, Jathedar Tehal Singh and Bhai Lachman Singh who sought to liberate Sri Nankana Sahib from Hindu Mahants who were introducing prostitutes and other anti-Gurmat practices into our Gurdwara's just like how the Muslim Massa Ranghar had done in earlier times. Kartar Bedi was a staunch supporter of the Hindu Mahant Narain Das who murdered 130 Sikhs at Sri Nankana Sahib in 1921. Gurbaksh Bedi was famously anti-Sikh + used to go on Hindu stages to declare that Sikhs are Hindus. Compared to these individuals Amitabh seems more "Sikh" for at least trying to clear his name at Sri Akal Takht Sahib.

This young couple sbhullar and her Gusikh husband to be should definitely marry this year (in Canada if it has to be). Is your wife also Jatt like u 1469 bro as that probably helped u with gaining ur parents consent most likely? Parents haven't found any fault with the Gursikh guy the Singhni wants to marry. Apart from the fact that he is from a certain background + society will be upset that they as parents did not enforce the idiotic hindu caste system on there daughter. Instead of being happy that the Gursikh in question clearly loves there daughter and isn't a druggie they are opposing Gurmat + Rehat because of society but I hope the father will support it but u would have had u hindu caste system supporters not been led away from the worst excesses of your pathetic beliefs by Guru Sahib. the only choice u had in life was to marry a Jatt girl from India because u are Jatt

Dear Sister, I really hope u marry this Gursikh. Even if u were my blood sister, I would be happy for u to marry a guy like u have described. Out of respect for your parents please keep trying to convince them this year but if they put society and hindu caste system ahead of there daughters happiness and future then remember that 95% of Sangat support u and will do as if u family to us. U can ignore the usual hindu caste system supporters as they dont support Gurmat or Rehat Maryada which says no sanjog can be stopped because of hindu caste system. Non-physical friendship is not paap its a blessing that u found such a good Gursikh. I am proud of u and I support u both and I know 95% of Sangat do too The choice is between Sikhi (marrying your husband to be) and the hindu caste system society supporting fools

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCz9MXmcsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwkjM0KcII TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam What does the Religion of Peace Teach About... The Sex Life of the Prophet Question: Was Islam's "perfect man" sexually restrained? Summary Answer: The Quran (which was narrated by Muhammad) refers to Muhammad's life as "as beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah" (33:21) and "an exalted standard of character" (68:4). Yet, thanks to Allah's extraordinary interest in his personal sex life (as immortalized in the Quran) the prophet of Islam had sex with just about anyone he pleased. Although the Qur'an didn't appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren't), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary). Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son's wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The Qur'an: Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance. Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...? Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those slaves whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism. Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims. Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives?... Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths " Another remarkably personal passage of sexual convenience in a book billed as Allah's perfect and eternal message to mankind. Muhammad was caught sleeping with a slave woman on the night that he was supposed to be with one of his wives. Initially promising to be faithful, "Allah" tells his prophet to break that promise and enjoy sex with his slaves. If his wives objected then "it may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you." Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those slaves whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle. From the Hadith: Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions. Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her). Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her. Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child. Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans. Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period. Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating. Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why. Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' " Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly). Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together. Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him. Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed as sexual slaves among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself. Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted). Additional Notes: Muhammad's sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet's consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile. Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age. The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30's when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don't know the age of Muhammad's sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating. Prior to the medical advances of the last century, marriage occurred at a much younger age across all societies. When life expectancy was in the mid 20's (or lower), it made no sense to wait until 19 to start having children; otherwise, one ran the risk of not being around to raise them. In short, childhood as we know it was abbreviated by the reality of the times. Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn't say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles - thus entering into "womanhood." It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this. On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses," meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, "a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman"... but that's just us).

how the heck has she let her parents down? her parents dont care about Sikhi as they believe in the anti-Sikh caste system. her husband to be is a Kesdhari and they haven't done anything before marriage except develop a friendship. admit it u support the parents because they are going against Sikhi and Gurmat and cuz of caste of course. a typical Jagsaw Jatt post. u cudn't stand it that Sikhs from different backgrounds mixing in marriage to created a unified Panth. so u resort to cheap bs + hidden insults for a young sister going thru a difficult situation when she has done no wrong.

Agree with wot u saying about Pakistani's bro but its Jagsaw Singh who was West London Singh not mrggg123. Proactive will answer u in his own time Jagsaw ... but the running score of times where he has corrected u factually is way too many to mention. U always say something bland and fluffy to support the Muslims, Islam or Pakistan + then scholars like Proactive and Mehtab Singh and Sikh Kosh others routinely expose your ignorance when it comes to this topic. Nobody is advocating the murder of Muslims who numbered 100 million strong in India 1947. Sikhs were around 6 million back then. Muslim Punjabi's back in 1947 outnumbered Sikhs by about four to one. It shouldn't take Einstein to figure out that even if equal numbers of Sikhs and Muslims were killed in the systematic 1947 Genocide of Sikhs by Muslim Pakistan it hit our Panth's far smaller population way harder in percentage terms. Muslim Punjabi's wanted to ethnically cleanse Doaba, Majha + Malwa of Sikhs too so that they could grab all of Punjab for the Islamic State of Pakistan. Obviously by your tone you would have supported them. I know you will wheel out the stories you heard from your grandparents but let me tell you that for every one of those stories from your pind there were other pinds like mine where these east Punjab Muslims from especially the Jatt, Rajput, Arain and Gujjar castes thought that as their brethren had successfully butchered our Sikhs big time since March 1947 in western Punjab that they could simply exterminate east Punjab of all Sikhs in a similar fashion. What they forgot to reckon on in East Punjab was that our population matched theirs and in a fight of equal or fairly equal odds, with equal ammunition, Sikhs never have and never will surrender or lose to anybody. Virtually every Muslim in East Punjab voted for Pakistan (and for Doaba, Majha and Malwa to be wholly in Pakistan) and then when they tried to brutally kill off all Sikhs in East Punjab then obviously Sikhs were going to fight back as Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana all going to Pakistan would have meant the annihilation and genocide of all 6 million Sikhs. The writing was on the wall. If the Sikhs did not make a stand in the area's where our population was around the 30% mark (Majha, Malwa, Doaba) we would have been completely exterminated. Maybe me and you or others might not have been alive today as a result. So the Sikhs who fought back against the East Punjab Muslims probably averted the holocaust of 6 million Sikhs if all of Punjab had fallen under Pakistani control. Revenge had nothing to do with it. True Sikhs do not murder innocents. Only the guilty aggressors like Indira Gandhi face the response of Sikhs. Jagsaw rather than concentrating on always continually standing up for Punjabi Muslims and Pakistan how about for once u stand up for poor Sikhs from a different background that u always complain wrongly get reservation benefits?

I agree WLS that good Muslims are one of the biggest victims of this fake religion called Islam. But what u are forgetting is that there are 5 times as many Muslim Punjabi's for every one Sikh. So if equal numbers of Sikhs + Muslims died in 1947 then the Sikh Panth still suffered more in comparative terms. We owe it to future generations to stamp out the false ideology of Islam and the Quran which supports slavery, terrorism, rape and pedophilia to protect future innocent Muslim victims from future religious conflicts. The crazy thing is Mirpuri's are ethnic Punjabi's who don't even speak Kashmiri. But you get peeps claiming as if a Muslim Jatt from Pakistani Punjab is all good but Mirpur Muslim Jatts are bad. It's a clever lie made by Pakistani's to shield their country from pedophilia claims by blaming it all on "Mirpur" lol. Just like the Pakistani lie that they suffered more during Partition + that they were the victims of Sikhs who started it. The root of all this problem is the terrorist slavemaster racist rapist pedophile role model (Prophet Muhammad) that Muslim Jatts, Mirpuri's, Pakistani's + Muslims are looking up to + following that is to blame for all this. Only by exposing the pedophile who created Islam can the world be free of Muslims like Islamic State + Boko Haram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCz9MXmcsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTeAB4l0KCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVWksqo-u-8

Yeah bro the Muslims in Pakistan killed 20% of the Sikh population in 1947. Imagine if about 100million people in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia got killed tomorrow. That's the scale of the Sikh Genocide suffered in Pakistan 1947. Obviously the historic Ghallughara's were even more worse than that as the majority of Sikhs of those times were killed in the Vade and Chhote Ghallughare. http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Wadda_Ghalughara You see bro even tho the pedophile Prophet Muhammad was long dead before Sikhi it was his depraved ideology in the Quran which advocates slavery, terrorism, pedophilia, rape which led to Sikha di shaheedian throughout history. It's sad that you weren't aware of the massive Genocide of Sikhs by Pakistan in 1947 (that inspired Indira Gandhi). But if you read this article it will give you an idea of one small area where Master Tara Singh came from. 1947 Rawalpindi Shaheedis We all know that the riots of 1947 were the worse that the Sikhs faced in the last century. Sikhs in 1947 lost all their property, money and many lost their lives. They chose to live in India and did not change their religion to secure their property, money or lives. After leaving everything in Pakistan Punjab, the came to East Punjab i.e. Indian side of Punjab and built everything from scratch. Then another massacre came in the 1980s when tens of thousands of Sikhs died for Sikhi. In the next few days, I am going to write on selected incidents that occurred in Rawalpindi area of Pakistan, in March 1947. This area was worse affected by the riots of partition in 1947. The Sikhs were massacred by the Muslims of that area. The striking thing that I want to write under this thread is not that Sikhs got massacred but how bravely the Sikhs fought back aggression and how much they sacrificed to keep Sikhi. Some of the stories are very emotional and very hard to read. I am not sure if I can narrate these stories as well as they were narrated by the people who actually saw all this with their own eyes. I will try. AREA OF POTHOHAAR I.E. RAWALPINDI AREA OF PAKISTAN This area was the centre of Sikhi in those days. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee writes that before he went to jail, this area was full of bibiyaan with dastaar and many families had adopted the strict Khalsa rehit. It was in this area where Sant Baba Attar Singh jee Mastuanawaale, did rigorous bhagti for many years. This is the land where great Sikh Siri Thakur Nihaal Singh, reputed to be a brahmgiyaani gursikh, did great preaching of Gurmat. This is where Baba Khem Singh Bedi did heavy parchaar of Gurmat and inspired many to take amrit of Guru Sahib. Sikhi parchaar was so heavy in this area that even Brahmin Hindus adopted Sikhi and became tyaar bar tyaar Singhs. This area was very prosperous and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee writes in one of his books that due to increase in maaiya, may Sikh families had become weak in Sikhi and had become more indulged in worldly pleasures. Who knows, maybe this is why this area was hit most severely by the riots of 1947 MASSACRE OF THEHA KHALSA AREA OF RAWALPINDI – MARCH 1947 This small town of Theha Khalsa was one of the main towns of Pothohaar (Rawalpindi area). Sikhs and Hindus living in this town were very well off. In total about 500 families lived in this small town. There were some Muslim families living there too but there was no communal problem at all. In the fateful month of March 1947, riots started in other parts of Pothohaar. Actually it is wrong to call it riots because the Sikhs were not attacking anyone, just defending themselves. The Sikhs of Theha Khalsa town assembled at the local Gurdwara Sahib to discuss what to do. Sant Gulaab Singh was the undisputed leader of this village and he was from a very well-to-do family. His ancestral home was very big. During the discussions, he suggested that all the Sikhs of that village assemble at this house and stay there till the danger of riots is over. He said that it would be easy to defend if all the Sikhs stayed at one spot. He further said that at this crucial time only Guru Sahib can help them. SIKHS MOVE TO THE HAVELI OF SANT GULAAB SINGH All the Sikhs after hearing the emotional lecture of Sant Gulaab Singh agreed to move to his house. They brought all their money, jewellery and gold etc, along with them and assembled at his house. In total about 1200 Sikhs and some Hindus assembled at his house. They fortified the haveli by making bunkers and replacing regular doors with heavy doors. They covered the walls of the haveli with shields of iron. First of all they secured a large room and brought all Saroops of Dhan Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee over there. Over 36 saroops were brought to that room. Big tanks of water were filled and large quantity of fire-wood and grains was stocked up. The Sikhs were in great danger, so they all started doing paath day and night. They asked Guru Sahib for strength to save their faith. MUSLIMS ATTACK THE HAVELI FILLED WITH SIKHS On March 8, 1947 while the sangat was doing Siri Rehraas Sahib paath, many thousand Muslims came and surrounded the building. They were shouting “ALLAH HOO AKBAR”, “MUSLIM LEAGUE ZINDABAD”, “KAFRON KO MAAR DO” i.e kill the infidels. There must have been at least 6000 Muslims and all had weapons. Many had guns. Some were on horse backs and they were shouting anti Sikh slogans. They were uttering obscenities against Master Tara Singh and other Sikh leaders. The sangat kept doing simran of Vaheguru Vaheguru. The Muslim crowd assembled in the school building. It is not clear what was decided in that meeting but when they came out of the meeting they started burning the shops and houses owned by the Sikhs. Then they attacked the haveli where all the Sikhs were present. The Sikhs had some guns and they kept the crowd away. On one side of the haveli, they attacked with great vigour. Sardar Partap Singh, a very brave young man, took along with him about 8-9 singhs and attacked the attacking Muslims. They attacked with so much force that the Muslims were pushed back. One of the bullets hit Sardar Partap Singh on his leg. The next day again the Muslims came back but this time they did not wait for the night. They came back around 10am. The Muslims again attacked but could not get in the haveli. Then the Muslims sent a representative to talk to the Sikhs holed up in the haveli. Sant Gulab Singh refused to accept their conditions that the Sikhs should disarm themselves. This way the fight went on for 2 more days. Finally on the last day, the Muslims came with bombs and said that they would bomb the haveli if the Sikhs did not get out of there. The Muslims promised by swearing on the Koran that they were only interested in the gold and money and not in killing anyone. The Sikhs had no choice but to get out. They did ardaas and moved out, leaving all belongings behind. After the Sikhs came out, they got surrounded by the large crowd of Muslims. The Sikhs arrived at the sarovar of the local Gurdwara Sahib. The pathaans armed with latest weapons surrounded the Sikhs sitting around the sarovar. The Sikhs were chanting “Satnam Siri Vaheguru”. By then about 10,000 Muslims came where the Sikhs were. Along with them, they had dozens of barbers lined up to cut the hair of Sikhs. Children were crying for food and milk. Old and young were helpless to do anything. The whole scene was a scene from hell. SHAHEEDI SAAKA Sant Ghulab Singh jee writes as follows: “by this time Sardarni Lajavanti Kaur asked me if she could go to the well by my hut. I took her to the well and everyone washed their faces and drank fresh water. There were 90 bibiyaan (Sikh females). Many were unwed young girls. My granddaughters, grandsons, nieces, and other related women were there amongst them”. “Soon a person came and asked me to go to the Gurdwara Sahib where the aggressors (jarvaane) were troubling the sangat. He said that the sangat was calling me. I said Sat Sree Akaal to bibiyaan and started walking towards the Gurdwara Sahib”. “The well was about 200 feet from the Gurdwara Sahib. When I reached there, a Muslim leader came up to me and asked me, “So what have you decided?” I found out that the singhs had been given half an hour to accept Islam or else they get ready to die. The Singhs present there said to the Muslims that they would do what Sant jee (this daas i.e. I) tell them to do”. “Dhan Pita Kalgidhar! I laughed after hearing this from the Muslim leader. I said, “Your cruel and tryant emperors like Aurangzeb and Farukhsiyaar too could not do anything to the Sikhs. What can you do, when they could not do anything. Do what you want to do. We will never give up Sikhi and will never become Muslims”. “When I came to the Gurdwara Sahib, some pathaans and thugs from Punachh and Mairabaad sensing that the bibiyaan were alone at the well, reached there and surrounded the well. They addressed the bibiyaan, “Now we are going to take away your daughters and sister and will marry them after converting them to Islam.” At that time Sardarni Laajavantee Kaur could not resist Bir Rass anymore and said, “Scoundrels! Who can touch the daughters of Guru Kalgidhar. From the time we took amrit, we accepted death as reality and don’t fear it.” The Muslims thugs got angry hearing such answer from Sardarni Lajavanti Kaur. They moved forward towards her. Sardarni jee was holding her 5 year old granddaughter and a grandson. She loudly said the jaikaara, “Bole So Nihaal!! Sat Srree Akaal!!”. Saying this she jumped in the well, in order to avoid getting her granddaughter and herself raped by the Muslims. Within seconds all Sikh women jumped in the well. All 90 jumped in. A person came running to me and told me the whole incident. After hearing this incident, all Sikhs present there said, “Dhan Gursikhee!! Dhan Guru Kalgidhar! I dashed towards the well”. “At that time what to talk about the pathaans but all aggressors were shaken from within. They were saying that who can kill such people who can sacrifice their lives to save their honour.” “When I reached the well, my granddaughter, Harbhajan Kaur, my daughter-in-law Kartar Kaur and one sister-in-law Sardarni Ram Rakhee were crying as the well was full and they did not drown. By then 87 lives had been taken. They were taken out of the well. I was baffled. I uttered, “Dhan Gurdev, these daughters of yours have passed your test. Please show me the way too. At that time I had clear darshan of Dhan Guru Nanak Dev jee and Hazoor said, “You still have to see more of this bloodshed. You have to do some more sewa of sangataan”. “After this bloody massacre, the Muslims got scared and started running away but some scoundrels were left. All Sadh Sangat came to my house and stayed there for the night. Muslims tried to find a lone Sikh to convert but could not convert anyone”. “I climbed a tall tree and saw a scene from hell. 87 lives had been sacrificed. The towns of Dera Khalsa, Kallar, Thamali, and Beval were burning. At that time I sang out baani to get peace of mind” “At amritvela, I got darshan of Guru Kalgidhar jee and he said that our test was over.” The above was written by Sant Ghulaab Singh and I have made a humble effort to translate the quoted paragraphs above. In any case, the military arrived soon and everyone was taken to the camps. The shaheedi of Sardarni Lajavanti Kaur and other Sikh women, saved the remaining Sikhs. by Bhai Kulbir Singh

Not at all bro. Sikhi is for Sarbat da Pala so we can't just selfishly think about ourselves. We gotta free the whole world of the false ideology that a certain pedophile called Prophet Muhammad created. Islamic State, Boko Haram + why the 1947 Sikh Genocide (worse than 1984 even) + the historic Ghallughara's of Sikhs happened is all cuz of Islam bro. Prophet Muhammad : A Pedophile Muhammad “married” Aisha when she was six years old. 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Muslim 8. 3310 Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he sexually consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Bukhari 7. 62. 64 Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he sexually consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Bukhari 7. 62. 65 Narrated 'Ursa:The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and sexually consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). Bukhari 7. 62. 88 Arab year is lunar, which is shorter than solar year. In solar years, Aisha was 8 years 9 months old when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. Consummate? This is a nice way to say raped her. According to Muslims, a woman must consent to her marriage or the marriage is null. How can a 6-years old child consent to her marriage? Without a consent, how can we call this relationship between a 51 years old man and a 6-years old child marriage? Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true. The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." Bukhari 7.62.18 Even though Abu Bakr was fool enough to let Muhammad have sex with his little daughter, that marriage was invalid, because the only person who should have given consent was a minor. Aisha was unaware of what was going on and was surprised when pedophile Prophet Muhammad pulled down his pants and invited her to sit on his lap. She Narrated: When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon. Bukhari 7. 62. 90 Aisha was playing with dolls like any other 8 year old child would do. She was not ready for marriage and had no understanding of it. Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Bukhari 8. 73.151 Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Bukhari 5.234 Having sexual feelings for small children is called pedophilia. According to Ayatollah Montazeri, the most revered Shiite cleric of Iran , the “marriage” of Muhammad and Aisha was a political maneuver to placate the enemies of Islam. He wrote: The reason for this marriage was that the Prophet was under the intense pressure by his enemies like Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl and was completely dependant of the protection of other tribes. Abu Bakr had a lot of tribal influence. And rejecting his offer, in those conditions, for the Prophet was not prudent. In reality this marriage was symbolic and not to satisfy his sexual instinct, because, as a rule a 53-year-old man cannot have sexual feelings for a 9-year-old girl. This is nonsense. Abu Bakr was already a devout follower of Muhammad and his confidant. Abu Lahab and Abul Hakam (whom Muhammad derogatorily called Abu Jahl, father of ignorance) had nothing to do with Abu Bakr. How can having sex with a child placate one's enemies? Assuming this ridiculous excuse is true, what about Aisha? Was she only a pawn for Muhammad’s political maneuvers? In one thing the Grand Ayatollah is right. As a rule a 53-year-old man cannot have sexual feelings for a 9-year-old girl, unless he is a pedophile. The Islamocritic scholar, Abul Kasem, has demonstrated that in Islam there is actually no age limit for marrying a child. He found the following hadith which shows a Muslim man can marry an infant. However should one of his adult wives suckle that infant both wives become haram to him. Case of one of two wives suckling the other-If a man marry an infant and an adult and the latter should give milk to the former, both wives become prohibited with respect to that man [their husband], because if they were to continue united in marriage to him, it would imply the propriety of joint cohabitation with the foster-mother and her foster-daughter, which is prohibited, in the same manner as joint cohabitation with a natural mother and daughter-It is to be observed on this occasion, that if the husband should not have had carnal connexion with the adult wife, she is not entitled to any dower whatever, because the separation has proceeded from her, before consummation :-but the infant has a claim to her half dower. [Hedaya Vol. I Book III, page 71 (Ref. 6)] Abul Kasem also quoted the story of Umar marrying a child just four or five years old. Umme Kulthum was 4 or 5 years old when Caliph Umar married her. This child was his most favourite wife (just like prophet Mohammad). There is a great controversy about the identity of this child bride of Umar. Many scholars claim that she was the daughter of Ali and Fatima. Others say that Umme Kulthum was the posthumous daughter of Abu Bakar and Habiba. Abu Bakar died (13 A.H.) a few months before Umme Kulthum was born. She was the half sister of Aisha. So, Umar asked Aisha for the hand of Umme Kulthum when she (Umme Kulthum) was only 4 - 5 years old. Aisha agreed and Umar and Umme Kulthum got married. According to Abul Kasem’s calculations, Umar was 56 years old when he married this little girl. Why would he not wait for Umme Kulthum to reach the age of nine? Shouldn’t Umar follow the sunna (example) of his prophet? The answer is that Muhammad did not set any limits for child marriage. Ummar must have remembered when Muhammad expressed his desire to marry a crawling baby before death overtook him. This story is reported by Ibn Ishak, the most authentic biographer of Muhammad. Most other biographies are based on this monumental work of Ibn Ishak/Ibn Hisham (Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba….(Ref.3, page 311)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm But why blame these Pakistani Jatts when all they are doing is following in the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad: A Rapist Muhammad allowed his men to rape the slave women captured in raids. However, after capturing the women, Muslims faced a dilemma. They wanted to have sex with them but also wanted to return them for ransom and therefore did not want to make them pregnant. Some of these women were already married. Their husbands had managed to escape when taken by surprise and were still alive. The raiders considered the possibility of coitus interruptus (withdrawing from intercourse prior to ejaculation). Unsure of the best course of action, they went to Prophet Muhammad for counsel. Bukhari reports: Abu Saeed said: “We went out with Allâh's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allâh's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [1] Notice that Prophet Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war. Instead, he indicates that when Allâh intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it. In other words, not even the absence of semen can prevent it. So Muhammad is telling his men that coitus interruptus would be futile and ill-advised because it would be an attempt to thwart the irresistible will of Allâh. Prophet Muhammad does not say a word against the forced insemination of these captive females. In fact, by criticizing coitus interruptus, in effect he supported forced insemination of female slaves. In the Qur’an, Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.[2] Juwairiya: Ibn Aun has narrated: “I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.” Bukhari 3.46.717 (see also Muslim 019. 4292) Prophet Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina. Juwairiya was one of the captives during the raid of Banu Mustaliq. When all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers, Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of Haris, the leader of the clan. The Islamic site muslims.ws writes: “She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet paid the amount of ransom and married her.” First he raids a population without warning because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. The narrator says, “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” Prevailing practice? Didn’t Muhammad come to show people the right way? Why should he follow the evil prevailing practices of a people whom he called ignorant? By doing so, he set the example and those evil practices became standard practices of the Muslims for ever. The narrator says that upon seeing Juwairiyah the Prophet was “moved”. Methinks that movement must have happened in his male organ because his heart seems to have remained cold and unmoved. Although Muslims call this marriage, I call it rape. Safiyah Safiyah was a beautiful 17 years old Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops raided Kheibar. She was the daughter or Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Medina , whom Muhammad had beheaded two years earlier along with the men of Banu Quriaza. The tribe of Banu Nadir had been already banished from Medina and their properties were confiscated. Safiyah had married to her cousin Kinana, who was a young Jewish leader of Kheibar. When Muhammad raided that fortress, he killed its unarmed men and captured the rest. A Jewish traitor, (reminds me of Noam Chomsky) to gain Muhammad’s favor and be spared from death, told him that Kinana was the treasurer of the town and that he used to hide the money in some ruins. Muhammad ordered Kinana to be tortured to reveal the whereabouts of the treasures and killed him. Then he asked the prettiest woman from amongst that captives to be brought to him. Ibn Ishaq writes: "The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaibar chief, and two female cousins: [sisters of Kinana] the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya's female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allâh observed this scene, he said, 'Remove these she devils from me.' But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own. The apostle reprimanded Bilal, saying, 'Hast thou lost all feelings of mercy, to make women pass by the corpses of their husbands?'” Safiyah was taken to Muhammad’s tent. Muhammad wanted to have sex with her on that very night, only hours after torturing to death her husband. She resisted his advances. That night Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of Muhammad. When, in the early dawn, Muhammad saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, I was really afraid for you on her account". (Ibn Ishaq, p. 766) The next day Muhammad covered Safiyah with his mantle, an act signifying that she is now his. Safiyah was groomed and made-up for Muhammad by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik and was taken to Muhammad who married her in a mock marriage ceremony and raped her that night. Muslims call this marriage. I call that rape. I am certain not many young women would like to jump into bed with an old man who happens to be the murderer of their father and husband and many other relatives. That poor woman had no choice; therefore that marriage was nothing but a mockery of this sacred institution. At that time Muhammad was close to sixty years old. Rayhanah Another victim of Muhammad was Rayhana, a 15 year old girl from the tribe of Banu Quraiza. Muhammad massacred all the men of that tribe. Then women were brought to him to pick and he chose Rayhana. Rayhana never married Muhammad and unlike Juwairiyah and Safiyah never feigned being a Muslim to have an easier life. She preferred to remain a sex slave rather the wife of the murderer of her father, brothers and uncles. [1] Bukhari, Volume 5, Book59, Number 459. Many other canonical hadiths recount how Muhammad approved intercourse with slave women, but said coitus interruptus was unnecessary because if Allâh willed someone to be born, that soul would be born regardless of coitus interruptus. See the following: Bukhari 3.34.432: “Narrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh's Apostle he said, "O Allâh's Apostle! We get female slaves 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 Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” Sahih Muslim is another source considered factual and accurate by virtually all Muslims. Here is Sahih Muslim 8.3381: “Allâh's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about 'azl, (coitus interruptus) whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allâh intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).” Muslims also consider Abu Dawood highly accurate and factual. Here is Abu Dawood, 29.29.32.100: “Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, ‘Tell them.’ She was embarrassed. He said, ‘It is alright, and I do it myself.’ Malik said, ‘A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practicing coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife does not practice coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.’" See also Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459, 7.62.135, 7.62.136, 7.62.137, 8.77.600, 9.93.506 Sahih Muslim 8.3383, 8.3388, 8.3376, 8.3377, and several more. [2] Qur’an, 4:24: “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you.” Qur’an, 33:50): “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to thee.” Qur’an, 4:3: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a slave) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” Sina's Challenge I receive many emails from angry Muslims, who sometimes beg me, and sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider both, pleading and bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies. If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay $50,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Prophet Muhammad of being: a narcissist a misogynist a rapist a pedophile a lecher a torturer a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin a terrorist a looter I have debated with many Muslims. Their defense of Islam can be summarized in two categories: Denial of the authenticity of Islamic sources that report the stories of crimes of Muhammad (example: debate with Edip Yukssel, a leader of the Submitters) Moral relativism and situational ethics, e.g., “In those days, pedophilia, assassination, rape, raid, pillage, massacre and lying, were common practices, so Muhammad is innocent because he did what everyone else was doing.” Muslims even go as far as to question the legitimacy of the Golden Rule to claim I do not have any basis to condemn Muhammad. In other words, who can say what is good and what is evil? That is up to the messenger of God to decide. (Example: debate with Yamin Zakaria) These are the main two arguments that Muslims present in defense of Islam. Any rational person can see they are logical fallacies. These charges are irrefutable. You simply can't disprove them because they are reported in Islamic sources and as such they are as good as confession. You can't acquit a criminal after he has confessed, unless you plead insanity, which is my point. Muslims often ask: "Who will judge whether or not an attempt to disprove your accusations against Muhammad and Islam, was successful?" The readers will be the jury. It is not difficult to see which side is right once both arguments are presented without one side fearing the other. I will publish the debates in this site. My opponents are also encouraged to publish them in any Islamic site. Please note that I will not accept face to face debates. The debates must be in writing. Edit 2007/07/29 The above challenge was issued in 2001 and it hasn't been met yet. See the debates I had with Muslims. Also see the pathetic attempt of some Muslims trying to refute me here , here, here and here. Is that all the Muslim world can offer? Where are the scholars of Islam? Why such an important task is left to a bunch of amateurs who actually do more damage to Islam? Isn't it time that the real scholars come forth and refute my charges? The truth is that several of the people that debated me were real scholars, such as the eminent Pakistani scholar Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and his disciple Dr. Khalid Zaheer. This debate is a must read and is available for download. Dr. Zaheer is a learned man, a moderate Muslim and a good human being. I have utmost respect for him. As of this date (2007), I will no longer debate with people who want to debate anonymously. I only debate with reputable scholars. I made this decision because often, Muslims moved by their faith and zealotry, but with little knowledge of Islam, challenge me to debate. They rehash the same tried and refuted arguments that bore everyone and disappear. Then, other Muslims, either accuse me of fabricating those debates or pooh-pooh my opponents for not being scholars. As of this day, I am also doubling the reward. If you are not a reputable scholar, you can still win the prize. All you have to do is persuade a scholar to debate with me. If he (she) disproves my charges or can prove that Muhammad was a prophet of God, both you and he (she) will be rewarded $50,000 dollars each. This is to encourage you to write to your admired scholar and convince them that Islam is in danger and that it is their duty to defend it. Once you write to invite someone, please CC a copy to us for announcing the invitation. Our email is faithfreedom2 (at) gmail.com Yes, Islam is in grave danger. Never, since its inception, Islam has faced a threat as serious as this. Today, millions of ex-Muslims are questioning the claimed truth of Islam, can make their criticisms heard worldwide, and unlike before, not fear for their lives. As long as these questions are not answered, this trend is only bound to continue, until the trickle becomes a torrent and the fall of Islam becomes obvious. In the past, the critics of Islam briefly shined like lamps in darkness, only to be put out by winds of persecution. What is happening today can be likened to the break of the dawn. Darkness has no chance in front of this much light. Muslims are waking up and leaving Islam like never before. A spiritual and intellectual revolution is underway. This is the century of enlightenment of the benighted Muslims. The giant is finally awakening. The days of Islam are numbered. This demon of hate and ignorance will be slain by the hands of its own primary victims. The unity of mankind and the world peace are around the corner. Please advertise this challenge. Every Muslim must see it. This is like throwing water on their fire. Nothing will dampen their zeal more than the realization that among a billion Muslims there is not a single scholar who can prove the wild claims of Muhammad, nor acquit him of these grave charges. This unmet challenge has a sobering effect on them. They can make any excuse, such as, I am not worth their response, that there have been greater men than me who opposed Islam, or that I have been refuted already, but they will not be able to fool themselves. The more this challenge is circulated, the more Muslims will be forced to remain silent and doubt Islam. Do not undermine the psychological effect of this impossible challenge. Sincerely Ali Sina

That's what these Pakistani Punjabi and Mirpur Muslim Jatts call themselves (Big Landowners - Chaudhury's) Muslim Jats of Azad Kashmir From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Jats are one of the larger communities found in the Azad Kashmir, making up the majority of the population of Mirpur District, and forming a large part of the populations of Kotli and Bhimber districts. According to the 1901 Census of India conducted by Britain, the total Jat population of the princely state of Kashmir was 148,000, and all were Muslim.[1] Most of them resided is areas that now form Azad Kashmir, although there were few villages in the Jammu (especially in villages like Muradpur, dassal danidhar, bagla, lam and many villages of mender and poonch) and Kathua regions, most of whom immigrated to Pakistan. Little is known about when the Jat settled in the foothill of the Pir Panjal, but reference was made by the Mughal Emperor Babar of the their presence in his memoirs Babarnama.[2] Contents [hide] 1 Distribution 2 Language 3 See also 4 References Distribution[edit]Jats predominantly reside in the traditional Jat heartlands of Chakswari, Dadyal, the city of Mirpur and the countryside surrounding these areas, which all form part of the Mirpur district which is overwhelmingly Jat. The main Jat villages in or around the city of Mirpur are Ban Khurma, Chitterpury, Balah-Gala, Kalyal, Khambal, Purkhan, Sangot and Thathaal as well as many villages around the Chechian area. The Mirpuri Jat make up a substantial portion of the British Pakistani community, as many of the Jat villages were flooded by the construction of the Mangla Dam.[3] Language[edit] The Kotli, Dadyal and Chakswari Jats speak in a broad Pahari dialect, whilst those of Mirpur City and its immediate surrounds speak in a dialect which resembles the Pothwari spoken in the Jhelum area, while the Bhimber Jats speak in the Pahari dialect influenced by the Punjabi spoken in Gujrat District.