Slaves In The Islamic State

[GPS]

Muslims are posing as sikhs in UK to manipulate sikh girls. Does islam allow that?

Osama bin laden razed twin towers to ground in New York city and he commanded

great respect among Muslims.Does islam allow that.

A religion is known by values it imparts to its adherents.

[jkvlondon]

It is exactly this phuddu sooch, 'all religions are one and humanitarian,' which is allowing Muslims to get away with terrorism.

Here's a new glorious episode in Islamic history:

When you have canards such as, 'only your faith is acceptable to God,' it is no surprise then that the first action against any individual questioning, belittling and insulting you is this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30719057

The truth is Waheguru cannot be monopolised because that is not His/Its nature ...and any faith that claims only they have the true path you can discount offhand as being full of haumai and thus not worth following. If the measure of daya is the treatment of the vulnerable-women children and animals, the atheists and those who follow other faiths by the adherents i.e. Islam is a major fail ...and what has Sikhi said about Daya , it is the predecessor of dharam so one could say there is no dharam there where there is no Daya... so again Islam fails.

Sikhi is saying/living/seeking the truth.... the truth is a dharam has to reflect Waheguru's qualities to have value , the more it does the closer to goal it can take you ...

most religions are not humanitarian as they divide men from men instead of joining them as one under Waheguru, they mostly subjugate women and try to say that her value is only as servant to a husband without real expectation of her own salvation, the only exception are those who become Nuns ,female monks but then she has to sacrifice grisht jiwan to do so.

Islam is weak and the followers know it because historically it could not stand up to scrutiny. That is why when Mohammed went to Medina and was confronted by the Jewish and Christians scholars about his claims of being a Messianic prophet he turned to violence to silence them and advised all his followers to do the same if and when they are questioned about the validity of the claim of the prophet. Again they have proven their insecurity ...

[kharkusingh1996]

One thing bothers me is that everyone knows of tiny minority of radical Muslims make up the whole Muslim population in the world but what are the other "moderate" Muslims doing about it? There are radical imams preaching hate and violence who knows where? Do we even know how bad are some of the teachings of other religions are being taught to Muslims in Islamic Schools throughout the world? When will moderate Muslims stand up and act and speak against those who are supposedly ruining the image of Islam? What is even being "moderate" Muslim even mean?

Sikhs will call out apne who are ruining the image of Sikhi within a heartbeat we will do it without fear but it seems majority population are silent in these cases.

[Ranjeet01]

Kharkusingh1996

A Sikh will go against another Sikh to protect a non-Sikh, our priority has always been truth and doing what is righteous, it is called being an upholder of dharma, it is something that is built into us.

A moderate muslim will not speak out against an extremist muslim because their priorities are different. Truth is not the priority, a muslim will stick up for another muslim in front of a non-muslim even though that muslim is in the wrong. Solidarity for them is the most important because they would consider that their honour and dignity is impacted.

Reason is that Islam is derived from Arab cultural values: me against my brother, me and my brother against my father, my father and brothers against my cousins, my family against my clan, my clan against my tribe, my tribe against other tribes.

Our way of thinking is very different from the Islamic way of thinking.

[Jonny101]

but what are the other "moderate" Muslims doing about it?

THIS

[Singh559]

THIS

Good individuals to follow on twitter:

Ali A Rizvi and MaajidNawaz

Both are at the forefront of reforming this mentality

[SheikhYoBooty]

THIS

But even the so-called moderate Muslims want ex-Muslims like Ali Sina to be killed for ditching Islam:

Sina's Challenge www.faithfreedom.org

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 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 mad man

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

[GPS]

sheikhjobooty

This is a sikh site.We discuss sikh issues here.Also issues related to human rights are disucssed.

Sikhs stand for human rights of every human irrespective of one's religion,caste or creed. ISIS
is violator of human rights of others that is why they are a curse on humanity.

Sikhs are taught by our Gurus to accord respect to other religions.If you want to curse Mohammed,

please find another site.Take your dirty linen there.

Please do not spoil serene setting of this site.

[13Mirch]

Islam's very dirty linen has become everyone's problem now.

[proactive]

It has never been the case that a whole population of a particular ideology has to be involved in violence for that ideology to be considered dangerous and violent. Islam is akin to both Nazism and Communism and has even been likened to the Mafia. It is well nigh physically impossible for 1.2 billion Muslims to suddenly arm themselves and start attacking non-Muslims around them and thus prove that Islam is the evil religion that it. For one there are no enough weapons in the world to arm every Muslim. For another not everyone single Muslim has a hard heart which one requires to follow Islam to its logical conclusion and attack non-Muslims. Millions of Muslims pay lip service to their faith and pick and choose which part they want to follow. For these Muslims they accept the very few positives aspects of Islam and ignore the negative aspects of Islam. However, they know enough to not criticise those Muslims who follow Islam in all its aspects such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Not all the Nazis were murderers, only a small percentage were responsible for the atrocities in the concentration camps but the rest were supportive of these atrocities. Not all communists physically took part in the atrocities of Stalin against his people or Mao's cultural revolution. Yet in both countries millions were killed in the name of communism. No one ever claims that because not all Nazis took part in the crimes of Hitler, it means that Nazism has been hijacked by extremists and Nazism is an ideology of peace!

What I find surprising is that my fellow Sikhs who appear to have swallowed the ultra PC line that Islam is a religion of peace and that it has been hijacked by extremists. Don't we see the pictures of the martyrs of the 18th century in our Gurdwaras and how horribly they were killed and all of which is completely in line with the teachings of Islam. Seeking to live a life of self respect in a Muslim state is seen as an act of defiance against Islam and as such is dealt with by violence. Aurangzeb, Mir Mannu and Abdali were not extremists who had hijacked Islam, they were the Al Qaeda and ISIS of their day. Behind them were millions of Punjabi Muslims who while they did not actively join with these tyrants, yet they still sympathised with their actions. The fact that ordinary Muslims also suffered due to the invasions of Abdali does not prove that Abdali who not acting in accord with Islam. Islam like any other totalitarian ideology in the end is more destructive to those who follow it than to those who do not. Look at the violence in every Muslim country, Muslims are killing Muslims at a much higher rate than they are killing non-Muslims but that does not mean that Islam is not a threat to non-Muslims.

Here is something interesting. The Khalsa goes against every rule that Islam has imposed on non-Muslims within an Islamic state. The Khalsa refused to pay Jizya to the Mughal state and later to Abdali. This act is always seen as a gross defiance of Islamic authority and something which is seen as unacceptable. The Jizya is paid as confirmation of subjugation of non-Muslims and when it is paid there is usually a symbolic act such as a slap given to the non-Muslim so that he feels himself subdued. Therefore if we accept that Islam is a legitimate religion then we also have to accept that non-Muslim deserve to pay Jizya and also be made to feel that they are subjugated. Non-Muslims are not allowed to build any NEW places of worship but they can renovate any old places of worship. This would have meant that Sikhs would not have been allowed to build any new Gurdwaras in Punjab. Thus why the Khalsa would always been in conflict with the Islamic state. Non-Muslims are also not allowed to place any religious symbols outside their homes or places of worship. Now consider what the Nishan Sahib is! Non-Muslims should not congregate on the streets and should go to their places of worship quietly. Nagar Kirtan anyone? Muslims are forbidden to address non-Muslims with any title which may convey honour on the non-Muslims. What is the title that we Sikhs go by? Sardarji! Majority of Muslims in India address Sikhs as Sardarji and when referring to a group of Sikhs will not say Sikhs but Sardars. Non-Muslims also should not be trained in any types of warfare or carry arms on their person. We have Gatka and Kirpan.

In an Islamic state Sikhism cannot be practised the way that it has been since the days of the Gurus, Therefore we of all the non-Muslims should be the ones who are against the setting up an Islamic state in any part of the world.

.