Jump to content

Tunisia Beach Attack


eduardo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just thought I would post this here, it seems a load of mosques in Tunisia are being shut for spreading hate filled rhetoric.

The question I have is why does it take a major mass slaughter before anything is done by the establishment the protect the people?

"Tunisia will shut down about 80 mosques accused of inciting violence, Prime Minister Habib Essid has said, after a beach attack that left 39 people dead.

The mosques, which operate outside state control, are spreading "venom" and will close within a week, he said.

On Friday a gunman opened fire on tourists in the resort town of Sousse.

Tunisians, Britons, Germans, Belgians, French and at least one Irish citizen were among those killed in the attack, claimed by Islamic State (IS)."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33297245

"The majority of the 38 people killed in the attack on a Tunisian beach resort were British, the country's prime minister Habib Essid has said.

An emergency Cobra meeting chaired by the prime minister is due to take place later to look at the UK's response to the attacks."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33297440

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of closing the mosques they should just present them with the Ali Sina challenge

Ali Sina's Challenge

Prophet Muhammad: An open Pedophile

Prophet Muhammad at the age of 51 “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 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 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 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 sexually 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 Prophet Muhammad have sex with his little daughter, that marriage was invaled, because the only person who should have given consent was a minor. Aisha was unaware of what was going on and was surprised when 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 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 Prophet Muhammad did not set any limits for child marriage. Ummar must have remembered when Prophet Muhammad expressed his desire to marry a crawling baby before death overtook him. This story is reported by Ibn Ishac, 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)

Back to Ali Sina's Challenge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I have is why does it take a major mass slaughter before anything is done by the establishment the protect the people?

Because mass slaughters tend to hit the headlines, whereas more isolated incidents of brutality usually don't. The Tunisians effected this shallow move in order to protect their international reputation, not out of any antagonism towards hardline Islam.

God rest those poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's the economy, stupid"

I doubt very much the Tunisians authorities cared much for the hate filled mosques and probably tacitly supported them. Now with the economy affected with tourists staying away the Tunisian authorities have finally been forced to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would post this here, it seems a load of mosques in Tunisia are being shut for spreading hate filled rhetoric.

The question I have is why does it take a major mass slaughter before anything is done by the establishment the protect the people?

"Tunisia will shut down about 80 mosques accused of inciting violence, Prime Minister Habib Essid has said, after a beach attack that left 39 people dead.

The mosques, which operate outside state control, are spreading "venom" and will close within a week, he said.

On Friday a gunman opened fire on tourists in the resort town of Sousse.

Tunisians, Britons, Germans, Belgians, French and at least one Irish citizen were among those killed in the attack, claimed by Islamic State (IS)."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33297245

"The majority of the 38 people killed in the attack on a Tunisian beach resort were British, the country's prime minister Habib Essid has said.

An emergency Cobra meeting chaired by the prime minister is due to take place later to look at the UK's response to the attacks."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33297440

Because the government needs these kind of attacks to justify their crackdowns which is why most of these attacks can be traced to governments hand via proxies who use the attacks to restrict human rights and freedoms and bring in non-democratic legislation. Those who crave police state powers are on the same said as the islamic nutjobs, they often pay the mullahs who train the jihadi's and carry out attacks on the behest of the people whose evil agenda they need furthering.

Why did they bring down gadafffi when he was a secular muslim who locked up islamic salafi jihadi's in jails and beat them daily. The SAS, M16 were seen in bengazi shipping weapons to the jihadi rebels and giving them training. Why would you do that unless you want the jihadi's to take over and take over from stable government. The British government tried 2 times to assassinate cornol gaddaffi in 1996 via SAS and M16 by paying local jihadi's both attacks failed and innocent libyan civilians were murdered. The british government to this day have not been tried for war crimes or done for aiding and abet terrorism. Just like how Evil Margaret thatcher aided and abetted indian state terrorism against Sikhs in 1980s via arms shipments, military intelligence sharing, plots to murder religious figures in the Golden temple via SAS and M16.

The Western governments are 50 years ahead of what anyone is thinking right now, they have strategic planners what future scenarios can be if they take action. They did not attack secular muslim saddam Iraq for no reason they wanted chaos. They did not attack syria by aiding islamic jihadi terrorists for no reason they wanted chaos. The atheist freemason saying is "order out of chaos" so they need chaos before they can bring their order. They are trying to line up their geo-political assets against Russian and Chinese influence in the world. They have the other big world player the Indian government slaves in their pay pocket via swiss bank accounts. But they do not have the chinese, the north koreans, the iranians and the Russians. Hence why they plot and plot and plot against these states not caring how many innocent civilians of their side or ours get caught up in the crossfire because they are above the law. We are not all equal the atheist freemason powers behind the American and British establishment only care for what they can get in this world and the net result in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never justifiable to kill innocent people who are involved in no wrong but at least British people can now fathom the sort of suffering they have instigated in many countries

This attack was a frustrating response to the fact that turkeys government bow down to western powers

Isis and the west are two sides of the same coin both are terrorists to a utopian world

Link to comment
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...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use