Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eduardo

Tunisia Beach Attack

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

Edited by eduardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

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

Edited by SheikhYoBooty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by cool water
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off mark but when it comes to groups like ISIS many Muslims tend to use the blame card and say 'they are trained by Mossad/CIA' or 'ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.'

The truth is that ISIS is a home grown problem who draw their inspiration and precedent from the days of their Prophet and the Quran/Hadiths.

Unfortunately many Muslims today will jump head over heals to protest about Palestine but stay silent in the face of mass atrocities by jihadists.

David Cameron recently said that elements of the UK Muslim community need to stop silently condoning ISIS and more action needs to be taken by them as a whole, and he was accused of Islamophobia!?

What a joke.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off mark but when it comes to groups like ISIS many Muslims tend to use the blame card and say 'they are trained by Mossad/CIA' or 'ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.'

The truth is that ISIS is a home grown problem who draw their inspiration and precedent from the days of their Prophet and the Quran/Hadiths.

Unfortunately many Muslims today will jump head over heals to protest about Palestine but stay silent in the face of mass atrocities by jihadists.

David Cameron recently said that elements of the UK Muslim community need to stop silently condoning ISIS and more action needs to be taken by them as a whole, and he was accused of Islamophobia!?

What a joke.

Muslims generally will not speak out against acts of violence against non-muslims. Most Muslims are seperaitst in nature they are taught by Quran and Hadiths to hate the kafir because their prophet muhammad and Allah tells them to. However in the hadiths their prophet muhammad also tells them there will be a group amoung them who will pray better than the muslim and do things to extremes that they will even kill muslims by declaring them as non-muslims. They will be known as the khawarij and these group of people will be the "dogs of hellfire". ISIS and other jihadi groups fit these type of muslims that their prophet muhammad has talked about

Either way the violent hateful interruption of Islamic ideology and other abrahmic religion ideologues as a whole can not be allowed to gain the power they have because they are easily manipulated by mullahs and imams who are funded by saudi and other arab states who in turn funded by atheist freemason entities.

Follow the money trail to its end and you will see whose agenda these group of nutters are fighting for. Do not look at the muslim monkey simpletons who believe in 7th century logic look at the powers in the shadows who use these monkies to do their bidding for geo-plitical strategic and financial gains

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Well which one would you as a Sikh rather live in?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none of them.......... islamization of the world and capitalist exploitation of the world are both wrong and dysfunctional, only a world based on the sikh teachings and world values of ethics, morality, justice, rule of law, prosperity for all is the best world to live in

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And even though these atheist freemasons are so smart and 50 years ahead of everyone, you have somehow figured it all out? Probably by watching a few youtube conspiracy theory documentaries? Oh man, someone should really let the freemasons know their plans have been figured out on SikhSangat. I do agree a lot of these conflicts are heavily based on geo-politics, but it seems to be the cool new trendy thing to blame it all on "western freemason atheists" when in my opinion there are tons of reigonal players. And I'm not sure if I understand, but do you seem to think Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and so on are victims and much better than the West? Because I am sure they're playing the same geo-political games to maintain their dominance.

Sorry to go off mark but when it comes to groups like ISIS many Muslims tend to use the blame card and say 'they are trained by Mossad/CIA' or 'ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.'

The truth is that ISIS is a home grown problem who draw their inspiration and precedent from the days of their Prophet and the Quran/Hadiths.

Unfortunately many Muslims today will jump head over heals to protest about Palestine but stay silent in the face of mass atrocities by jihadists.

David Cameron recently said that elements of the UK Muslim community need to stop silently condoning ISIS and more action needs to be taken by them as a whole, and he was accused of Islamophobia!?

What a joke.

Fully agreed bro. Its a shame to see so many Sikhs falling for these theories too. Was it also freemason atheists funding the Mughals? The Caliphiates? Arabs in Africa? Muslims have been upto to the same old games since Day 1, they just got a PR team to make excuses and dump blame elsewhere.

As for ISIS, most evidence points towards Qatar, Kuwait etc helping them out. Not USA or the Saudis.

Edited by KhoonKaBadlaKhoon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even though these atheist freemasons are so smart and 50 years ahead of everyone, you have somehow figured it all out? Probably by watching a few youtube conspiracy theory documentaries? Oh man, someone should really let the freemasons know their plans have been figured out on SikhSangat. I do agree a lot of these conflicts are heavily based on geo-politics, but it seems to be the cool new trendy thing to blame it all on "western freemason atheists" when in my opinion there are tons of reigonal players. And I'm not sure if I understand, but do you seem to think Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and so on are victims and much better than the West? Because I am sure they're playing the same geo-political games to maintain their dominance.

You can believe what you want no one is forcing you to believe in my analysis. I however do not believe in all youtube conspiracy theories as you imply. I take what makes sense and is logical rather than what any old propaganda people put out there. You maybe one of these people that don't subscribe that governments and powerful people have agenda's that are evil and aid attacks against innocent civilians. You probably dont believe that freemason atheists brought down the twin towers in 9/11 when overwhelming evidence shows you cant bring down the towers in that way using just planes without using controlling demolition and termite which was seen leaking in the videos taken that day. The passport of the hijackers found in the rubble? Norad was made to stand down on the day of the attacks why? 19 hijackers were saudi yet america didnt attack saudi arabia? Bin laden family who are connected to bush family were flown out of the country under protection by american security why? The oil pipeline negotiations with taliban in afghanistan prior 9/11 but the taliban refused to do a deal and thus set a pretext for invasion of afghanistan. Need i go on?

You probably dont believe that air india flight was brought down by indian and canandian intelligence agents as majority of Sikhs believe and as evidence and motivations point fingers towards the indian government. Maybe you didnt even believe that the british government under Margaret thatchers reign aided and abetted Indian state terrorism against Sikhs in india by colluding with indira gandhi as shocking secret documents have recently proved. You probably dont believe in any conspires because in your limited capacity of thinking all governments and their atheist bankster funders are good people and wish well for humanity.

Like I wrote about ealier why was M16 and SAS aiding the assassination of cornal gadaffi why back in 1996? Why were they dropping arms and giving specialised training to jihadi's to over run libyan government forces? Why was Hillary clinton screaming like a banshee with joy with the extra-judcial murder of head of state of libya when that is a war crime? Unless you want chaos you wouldnt do that. And chaos is what is happening in middle east right now. Freemasonic saying is "order out of chaos" can you explain now what your analysis is why western governments have been complict in aiding islamic jihadi nutjobs?

I am not saying Russians, Iranians, North koreans, syria, libya's gadaffi are/were the good guys but a Sikhs job is not to back one side over the other but to speak out when they see an injustice or evil. And we must question why are our western governments covertly aiding islamic terrorists via proxy puppet arab regimes? For whose benefit? Whats the real geo-political bankster agenda at play at the expense of our innocent civilians?

Ok great you carry on living in your hippy world, while the rest of us explore the realities of the powers behind the shadows.

Edited by cool water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Back in the day many jananis didn't used to dance - my mum and her sister are terrible at dancing and when I was younger I would ask why they didn't dance like other ladies, and instead just stood there, did the mandatory clapping, and swiftly leave. I remember asking my Bibi about this too. According to them the "upper castes" did not engage in this behaviour; it was not permitted and seen as besharmi. However certain castes were permitted, and so dancers were hired I think? Can't remember. Ironic now though. You see women who are well past the age of wearing brightly coloured suits nach'ing and tapp'ing. Oh vi uchi jaat de. Weddings were so simple. Close family would go for Anand Kaaraj, everybody went back to the house, fed the baraat, sagan, bas. Hun pura drama hunda ah.
    • @puzzled Honestly in that situation it's our farj to say something. Nowadays people are overly sensitive but we should still say something...have to remain cool though and say it pyaar de naal.
    • The suggestive dancing has gone on for decades.  The first time I saw it, my jaw dropped. In Punjab nobody bats an eyelid.  Compared to Punjab, you will probably see more people in the UK going to Anand Karaj and that I'd probably because of the milni and tea at the Gurdwara whereas the milni and tea in Punjab is at the palace.  Never underestimate the lure of free food.  
    • the true history dheaan which now bewakoof people are encouraging to do in Punjab making it easier for their daughters to be attacked  
×

Important Information

Terms of Use