Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rapists made 15 phone calls to each other during the journey from Leeds to Bradford to arrange the attack.
Tamseel-Virk-Azad-Raja-Najeem-Ulaseed-anVIEW GALLERY

Four predatory men - including a taxi driver, his uncle and nephew - were jailed for 68 years on Friday for raping a schoolteacher on a park bench after abducting and trafficking her from his cab.

The unconscious woman passed out after drinking at a birthday celebration before she came round to find one of her abusers having sex with her.

Private hire driver Tamseel Virk, 42; uncle and nephew, Azad Raja, 38, and Wakar Akhtar, 21, along with Najeem Ul-Saeed, 31, were convicted of the planned sex attack at Bradford Crown Court.

SWNSPAY-Tamseel-Virk.jpg
Jailed: Cabbie Tamseel Virk was sentenced to 17 years in prison

They were each locked up for 17 years as Judge Durham Hall told just three of them in the dock - Akhtar is on the run, fleeing the country after giving his evidence -: "This was totally despicable, it was utterly callous, it was a degree of inhuman behaviour hard, even for one such as myself inured to evil, to understand."

The woman was driven from Leeds to Bradford during which time 15 phone calls were made between the rapists, arranging the attack.

The assault happened in May when the drunk woman got in a taxi, which had not been flagged to his HQ, in breach of his licence, at around midnight.

The victim was 'noticeably affected' after drinking lager and whisky in a pub with friends, 'talking gibberish' and left her jacket, handbag and phone behind.

She was dropped off near their home and raped in turn on a bench in Great Horton Park, Bradford, while she was unconscious.

Prosecutor Andrew Kershaw said: "They manhandled her, causing bruises and minor injuries to both of her knees, as if she were put in a kneeling position on the ground."

The jury was told the victim woke up while Raja was having sex with her. Akhtar is alleged to have told her he had already had sex with her.

Ul-Saeed then turned up 'too late physically to join in the rape that he had set up.'

SWNSPAY-Wakar-Akhtar.jpg
Guilty: Akhtar was sent down for 17 years

Describing her ordeal, the woman said: "I had been planning to settle down and start and family with my partner of four years.

"Following the 25th I felt I had the identity and everything I had worked for kicked out of me.

"Something so horrific and personal has happened.

"I do believe I won't let what's happened get the better of me."

I thought virk was only a sikh name?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You don't know jack about the subject but had the nerve to say I took my info from wikipedia! Virks were minute in number in Doaba and Malwa. In Ludhiana they only had a few hundred mainly in the vill

Yes Jatt surnames very rarely overlap with Hindus but every Jatt surname found among Sikhs is also found among the Mulsim Jatts in Pakistan and, lets not forget, there are more Muslim jatts than there

Virk is a prominent Jatt clan, Jatts are an ethnic people found on the Northern Indian subcontinent. Jatts are diverse in religious affiliations and are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. In this case these i

Virk is a prominent Jatt clan, Jatts are an ethnic people found on the Northern Indian subcontinent. Jatts are diverse in religious affiliations and are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. In this case these individuals are Muslims, nothing to do with Sikhs so please delete or move this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Virk is a prominent Jatt clan, Jatts are an ethnic people found on the Northern Indian subcontinent. Jatts are diverse in religious affiliations and are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. In this case these individuals are Muslims, nothing to do with Sikhs so please delete or move this thread.

Yes Jatt surnames very rarely overlap with Hindus but every Jatt surname found among Sikhs is also found among the Mulsim Jatts in Pakistan and, lets not forget, there are more Muslim jatts than there are Sikh jatts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Virk are a mainly Sikh Jat got but in Gujranwala and Sialkot there were a number of Muslim Virks as well although they were still less than the Sikh Virks there. The fact that this paedophile is involved in grooming shows that Pakistani grooming is not a problem of Mirpuris but also involves Pakistani Punjabis as well.

How is it that these Pakistani Jats and Punjabis are involved in grooming but the same is not the case for Sikh or Hindu Jats or Punjabi? It has to the religion that made him a Paedophile just as is the case with what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq and Syria.

The most disgusting bit is that even if one of these guys for whatever reason displays tendency to commit rape who is it that he is not only able to discuss such a subject with his uncle and nephew and also have them join him in the rape? Apologies but can any of you guys imagine something like this happening in our communities or even our own families? Would you be able to discuss committing such a vile act with your uncle or nephew and even get them involved? This just shows what sick individuals these are as well as what a sick community they belong to. Committing rape didn't just occur to Virk on the spur of the moment otherwise he would have just raped the woman himself but he and his relatives must have discussed this before or even committed other rapes for him to be able to just phone his relatives up and get them involved.

Also can any of you imagine that other family members not directly involved in the rape would have been unaware of their activities? There is a culture of silence in the Pakistani community because these paedos are only raping non-Muslim girls and not those of their own religion and this is never discussed because the mainstream media as well as the politicians think that Pakistanis are like the British who usually don't even talk to or know their own neighbours. Every Pakistani knows what his community is up to but they keep quiet because it's just the kafir girls getting raped.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Virk are a mainly Sikh Jat got but in Gujranwala and Sialkot there were a number of Muslim Virks as well although they were still less than the Sikh Virks there.

What kind of nonsense wikipedia and second rate internet articles are you getting your facts from ? You've clearly taken your facts from some website wrtten by an imbecile that was fixated on the gujranwala area but was totally oblivious to the multitude of Virk villages in muslim dominated doaba and vast areas of malwa.

Virk is one of the most numerous muslim jatt clans in Pakistan. I don't know much about gujranwala and sialkot but the ones that migrated from doaba in 1947 now occupy many villages and whole tehsils in district faisalabad for example and the same for the ones that migrated from malwa.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that there are more muslim jatts who are Virk than there are Sikh jatts who are Virk.

Now, tell me why I should take the rest of your post seriously when you start your very first paragraph with innacurate non-facts ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were 20,000 Virks in Gujranwala in 1901 (included parts of what became Sheikhupura district) out of a total 46,000. The district which had the second highest Virk population of 6931 was Lahore (also included parts of what became Sheikhupura district) and the third highest was Sialkot with 3096. The area around the Nili bar jungle was the Virk heartland. Considering that 65% of the Virk population was concentrated in these areas then any writing about the Virks would mention these areas. Just because you knew some Virks in Doaba does not mean that they are relevant to a discussion on Virks.

Religion wise the only data based on gots is 1901 which prior to the conversion of the the mass of Hindu Jats to Sikhism. Virks were virtually unknown in the area that became Haryana in 1901. In 1901 the Virks wers split 21,000 Muslims, 18500 Sikhs and 6500 Hindus. Although at the time the Muslims were more than the Sikhs but the increase in the number of Jats by religion in the Virk heartland of Gujranwala between 1901 and 1931 was - Sikh Jats increased 275%,, Hindus decreased by 73% and the Muslims increased by 76%. So it is highly likely that the Hindu Virks from this area became Sikhs just as the other Hindus Jats were doing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Virk are a mainly Sikh Jat got but in Gujranwala and Sialkot there were a number of Muslim Virks as well although they were still less than the Sikh Virks there. The fact that this paedophile is involved in grooming shows that Pakistani grooming is not a problem of Mirpuris but also involves Pakistani Punjabis as well.

How is it that these Pakistani Jats and Punjabis are involved in grooming but the same is not the case for Sikh or Hindu Jats or Punjabi? It has to the religion that made him a Paedophile just as is the case with what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq and Syria.

The most disgusting bit is that even if one of these guys for whatever reason displays tendency to commit rape who is it that he is not only able to discuss such a subject with his uncle and nephew and also have them join him in the rape? Apologies but can any of you guys imagine something like this happening in our communities or even our own families? Would you be able to discuss committing such a vile act with your uncle or nephew and even get them involved? This just shows what sick individuals these are as well as what a sick community they belong to. Committing rape didn't just occur to Virk on the spur of the moment otherwise he would have just raped the woman himself but he and his relatives must have discussed this before or even committed other rapes for him to be able to just phone his relatives up and get them involved.

Also can any of you imagine that other family members not directly involved in the rape would have been unaware of their activities? There is a culture of silence in the Pakistani community because these paedos are only raping non-Muslim girls and not those of their own religion and this is never discussed because the mainstream media as well as the politicians think that Pakistanis are like the British who usually don't even talk to or know their own neighbours. Every Pakistani knows what his community is up to but they keep quiet because it's just the kafir girls getting raped.

Do you have any evidence that he's Pakistani Punjabi? Mirpuris also have the surname Virk as there are lots of Jatts amongst them. You also get Sikhs and Hindus involved in this, too, btw:

Sajad Ali, 34, Asif Hussain, 33, Ashad Jani, 33, Jerome Joe, 35, Akbari Khan, 35, Taimoor Khan, 28, Sohail Qamar, 40, Vikram Singh, 45, Harmohan Nangpal, 40, Faisal Iqbal, 32, Mohammed Imran, 38 and Farrukh Bashir

http://www.buckinghamtoday.co.uk/news/more-news/child-sex-offences-accused-appear-at-old-bailey-1-6448724

Sandeep Kumar and Jaskaran Ghuman, both of Clarendon Avenue, claimed their sexual activity with the teenager had been with her consent.

But a jury at Warwick Crown Court at Warwickshire Justice Centre on Friday rejected their versions of what happened and convicted Kumar, 28, of two charges of rape and Ghuman, 23, of one charge.

http://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/news/local-news/two-leamington-men-jailed-for-raping-18-year-old-escort-1-6271255

Bharat Modhwadia, 25, of Wycombe Road, was jailed for 16 months for paying for the sexual services of a child, inciting child pornography, and trafficking the girl by driving her to a location for sex. Judge Pert acknowledged that he had initially advised the girl not to have sex for money, but this did not ultimately stop him from "taking advantage of her".

Chandresh Mistry, 37, of Berridge Lane, was jailed for eight months for attempting to pay for the sexual services of a child. He used Facebook to arrange to have sex with the girl, but they did not have sex because he became aware of the police investigation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23896937

A pair of workmen who raped a prostitute at the house they were developing have been sent to prison after a jury found them guilty of the brutal attack.

Arvinder Singh, 22, of Oakwood Road, Southall, was jailed for eight years and Karnail Singh, 36, of no fixed address, was sentenced to seven years. Both will be deported from the UK after serving half of their sentence.

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/rapist-workmen-jailed-6016543

Puppy Parmar and Sandeep Chauhan now face being deported after being sentenced to a total of almost 14 years.

The pair were said to use their 16-year-old victim as a "sexual plaything" and were told by a judge how their crimes were "so heinous", their staying in the UK would be to the "detriment of society".

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/two-jailed-for-teen-s-gang-rape-1-371018

Two Sikh priests have been jailed for a total of 12 years for raping a 26-year-old Glasgow prostitute after she refused to have sex with them.

Gurnam Singh, 30, was sentenced to seven years and Sukhdev Singh, 36, to five. Both will be placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely.

A MAN who groomed a 14-year-old girl before plying her with alcohol and sexually assaulting her in his house has been jailed for 12 years.

Harjaskaran Singh, of Trelawney Avenue, Langley, was told he would serve a minimum of eight years behind bars, with an extended licence of four years, at Reading Crown Court on Friday (4).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20445350

Akshay Kumar, 38, admitted one count of causing a person under the age of 18 to be involved in pornography and was jailed for two years and 10 months.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/25/derby-men-guilty-sexually-abusing-girls

Vinayak Rama, who is 29, of Kashmir Road, and 29-year-old Reynold Carvalho, of Prestwold Road, were sentenced today after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing.

Rama admitted to two counts of rape, and was handed 10 years and six months in prison. Carvalho pleaded guilty to oral rape and was jailed for eight years and three months. Both men have also been placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

They raped the 12-year-old after befriending her in Holden Street, Leicester, on 1 October 2013. She was raped in a car by Rama on two occasions and subjected to oral rape by Carvalho.

http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-07-11/two-men-jailed-for-18-years-for-raping-12-year-old-girl/

I could point out that East Punjab has a much bigger gang rape and female infanticide problem than West Punjab, and then say "What's the difference? It's the religion" but I won't because that's just stupid.

British Mirpuris are a quite messed up community yes, but not British Pakistanis as a whole. There's a huge difference between Mirpuris and people who come from Central Punjab, Karachi etc. If you did your research you'll actually find that Mirpuris are severely looked down at by other British Pakistani communities: Look at these links (It's a Mirpuri run website)

http://www.portmir.org.uk/pages/sample-1---trash-attacks.html http://www.portmir.org.uk/pages/sample-2---trash-attacks-2.html http://www.portmir.org.uk/pages/sample-3---trash-attacks-2.html

Also, the notion that they don't target their own Muslim girls has been disproven. Read this: http://www.mwnuk.co.uk/go_files/resources/UnheardVoices.pdf You'll actually find they find it easier to target their own girls because of the notion of 'honour' etc where girls keep silent. It's nothing to do with targeting girls from other religions since they do it to their own as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: Why is society blaming these Muslim Jatts for following Islam, Muhammad & the Quran?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTeAB4l0KCM

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)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr 123 you have with intention tried to Show Sikhs as groomers. You have failed as that virk guy inthe article is muslim

. From your other posts on this subject you sympathised with Pakistan groomers and said People from our community in Southall are doing they same, this is a lie. Your are so also condemned those who highlight grooming and stand up for thosr that do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whts the difference between chowdhury and jatt?

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]

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Mirpuris are Jatts while the rest are Rajputs. Mirpuris are same as pothoharis of Pakistan in terms of their dialect spoken. In their society the Rajputs are considered superior over the Jatts. Historically they were a martial people like Pothoharis tribes who maintained their independence. Mirpuris largely converted to Islam during the time of Aurangzeb. The Bhangi misl was the first among the Sikh chiefs to bring them into submission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Quran, Muhammads 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? Didnt 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 Muhammads 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 Muhammads 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 Muhammads 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] Quran, 4:24: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you.

Quran, 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.

Quran, 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

Dude what do u even get out of copying and pasting all this <banned word filter activated>? Why waste your energy on all this missionary cr*p. Futile. Work on your own life. "Muhammed" et al have all been and gone. Their chance at life is long over. Now its our time, what are we the Sikhs doing about this? Or our own community matters? Our personal matters even? We're not here to judge others and nor were we around at the time of Muhammed to make the above comments. You rely on info provided by christian missionaries...lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude what do u even get out of copying and pasting all this

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)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Coming as an older, I'd advise younguns: Get married while you're young. It isn't like getting married when older is some guarantee of not getting divorced.   Plus you can get baggage as you get older, that can make relationships harder.  It's best when you have a good supportive network around you.  You'll need it. 
    • What certain twisted pro-colonial Sikhs like to hide, your ancestors fought for them and still got treated like shyte:   Forgotten stories of the bravery of the 1.5m Indian soldiers who fought alongside the British in WWI and the racism they faced in the trenches are revealed in newly-uncovered interviews with veterans Around 1.5 million men, mainly from remote north Indian villages fought with the British from 1914 to 1918 Fighting under the command of their colonial masters they faced racism, brutality and prejudice in the war The truth about their service  is revealed in veteran interview transcripts offered to the British Library   The forgotten stories of the Indian soldiers who served in WW1 have been revealed in newly uncovered interviews with veterans. Around 1.5 million men, who were mainly illiterate and from remote villages in Northern India fought with the British from 1914 to 1918. Fighting under the command of their colonial masters they faced racism, brutality and prejudice in the trenches.   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6325571/Forgotten-stories-bravery-1-5m-Indian-soldiers.html  
    • I was at an event in the Imperial War Museum over twenty years ago. There were lots of brit army types there. Highranking  and midranking too. Apnay were pushing for a Sikh regiment back then. The goray gave bull5hit excuses as to why not (don't ask me to repeat them here).  They have always tried to micro control us. They aren't that stupid that they don't know that a modern Sikh regiment could go against their wishes and agendas, and swing things against them. Thankfully it looks like we aren't the docile, childishly loyal chumchay some of our ancestors may have been. (Or goray plain don't trust us to behave docilely like they did previously?) Look at how these lot left us to mass rape and murder at partition. You know they never even bothered to give the Sikh sepoys pensions for their services after WW2 - that's how much 'respect' they had for them.  Fight for these f**kers in morally dubious wars, and you're their hero - fight for your own people's sovereignty or against grooming gangs, raping and abusing your womenfolk and even female children - and you're a terrorist or extremist....... Look at where we are now in europe, with Russia poised on Ukraine's border. Is it any of our business? Previously we'd have hordes of broke jut pendus jumping in - but now, we may get to see these lot f**king each over. Don't help, and buss out the popcorn.   Sikhs fight for Sikh causes.  NO MORE SEPOYS!  Look at Sant Ishar Singh ji. They were in the fauj for a short while, but prioritised their bhagti, even sneaking in simran when they should have been on duty. In the end (my family told me), they threw their angreez issued rifle in a river, and dedicated their lives to Sikhi parchaar.    Dhan Dhan Sant Ishar Singh ji Maharaj! 
    • @GurjantGnostic what  do you think the main message is from this story ?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use