Friday, 7 March 2014

Let's rid the entire Muslim world of Jews!

There is not a single Jew in Saudi Arabia as a result of ethnic cleansing.
There is not a single Jew in Libya (38,000 in the middle of the 20th century) as a result of ethnic cleansing.
There are less than 100 Jews in Algeria (140,000 in the middle of the 20th century) due to ethnic cleansing.
There are less than 100 Jews in Egypt (75,000 in the middle of the 20th century) due to ethnic cleansing.
There are less than 100 Jews in Iraq (150,000 in the middle of the 20th century) due to ethnic cleansing.
There are less than 100 Jew sin Lebanon (20,000 in the middle of the 20th century) due to ethnic cleansing.
There are less than 100 Jews in Syria (30,000 in the middle of the 20th century) due to ethnic cleansing.
There are of course also no Jews allowed in the West Bank and Gaza - except the "settlers" in the West Bank which the Western Left and Muslims are so outraged about. These places are almost Judenrein. And that's precisely why there is so much fucking fuss about the Israeli "settlers": the Western Left and Muslims not only want the West Bank to be Jew-free (Gaza is already Jew-free), but also the entire Arab world. Indeed many also want the entire world to be Jew-free as well.
There were up to a million Jews in Arab lands at one point in the 20th century. Virtually all of them have been ethnically cleansed by Muslim Arabs. The Left will say that this was a result of the 1948 creation of Israel and the war. They conveniently forget that the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Jews began well before that. It has been going on since these lands became Islamic. These are lands in which Jews have lived since well before their Islamisation. The ethnic cleansing heated up a little before the 1948 war too; as it had on previous occasions since the first Islamisations of Arab lands.
Yet the Western Left have zero to say about all this. But when the issue is forced upon them, they of course blame the Zionists/Jews for everything – just as their National Socialist duplicates did in the 1930s and 40s.


    The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
    Palestinian geographer; born at Flosz, Bavaria, Oct. 22, 1804; died at Jerusalem
    Feb. 5, 1865. When he was seventeen years old he graduated as teacher
    from the Königliches Schullehrerseminar of Colberg, after which he joined his brother Israel at the University of Würzburg, where for five years he devoted himself to the history and geography of the Holy Land, and published a map of Palestine (1829; republished at Vienna, 1831, and Triest, 1832). It was his ardent desire, however, to study in Palestine itself the physical history and geography of the Holy Land, where his knowledge of Talmudic sources and early Jewish writers would be of more service. Accordingly he decided to settle in Jerusalem, whither he went in 1833. Schwarz then began a series of journeys and explorations in various parts of Palestine, to which he devoted about fifteen years.
    The results of his investigations and researches into the history, geography, geology, fauna, and flora of that country have placed him in the front rank of Palestinian explorers and geographers. HE IS THE GREATEST JEWISH AUTHORITY ON PALESTINIAN MATTERS SINCE ESTORI FARHI (1282-1357), the author of "Kaftor wa-Feraḥ."

    614-1096 C.E.
    From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

    By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850


    Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, aka Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, was in fact: [A JEWISH RABBI] Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, perceiving this dreadful predicament, went to Mahomed, and offering him his submission, friendship, and services, endeavoured to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted his proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, a handsome young girl (A 6 YEAR OLD CHILD), for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally:

    The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.


    614-1096 C.E.
    From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

    By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850

    Fact Paper 26
    © Samuel Kurinsky, all rights reserved

    The Palestine Mandate as it was granted in 1920 to Great Britain at the San Remo conference. It incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, included the territory east and west of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, and was designated "Palestine." The entire mandated territory had been established by international mandate as a "Jewish National Home.’ The United States declared at that time

    "...that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a state in fact... England, as mandatory, can be relied upon to give the Jews the privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews."

    The eastern portion of the mandated territory from the Red Sea up to the Sea of Galilee was separated by Great Britain from "Palestine" in 1921-22 and bestowed upon the Emir Abdullah as "Transjordan." The territory east and north of the Sea of Galilee (now known as the Golan Heights), was ceded by Great Britain in 1923 to the Syrian French Mandate.
    The geopolitical drama being played out in Israel is based partly around the question of ancestral rights, and partly around recent history. If an argument is to be made as to which people have the more ancient roots in the Land of Israel, it would not favor the so-called "Palestinians." We use the adjective "so-called" pointedly because no such ethnic entity exists. The term is purely a political designation.
    The use of the word, "Palestine" is a tendentious anachronism. It has egregious political overtones, insofar as it implies that the "Palestinians," and not the Jews, are the legitimate inheritors of Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
    The word, "Palestine" is not Arabic! It is a Roman corruption of "Philistine," a Mediterranean island people who came to the southeast coast of Canaan from the opposite direction as did the "Palestinians." They were a sea people, whereas the progenitors of the "Palestinians," were nomadic desert tribesman who arrived two thousand years later.
    The Philistines first appeared on the shores of Canaan in the thirteenth century BCE, during the same period in which hundreds of Israelite villages were being established atop the hills of Canaan.
    "From the middle of the twelfth to the end of the eleventh century, [the Israelites] fought with the Philistines for the political and cultural domination of the country... From the early tenth century on.. [the Philistines] gradually lost their cultural distinctiveness and merged with the Canaanite population."1
    The Philistines were illiterate, so we do not know what language they spoke. It was definitely not Arabic!
    The holy language of the Jews is Hebrew, a language of Canaanite origin. The ancestral tongue of the Jews was Aramaic, a Semitic language, whose roots lie in Arameia, the region from which the Bible tells us that the tribe of Abraham originated. The Bible informs us that when Abraham arrived in Canaan he "assumed the tongue of Canaan." Linguists confirm that etymology. The philological transformation to Hebrew took place 2500 years before the Arabs invaded the area. Judah became a nation about 1000 BCE, over 1700 years before the Arab incursion.
    The native tongue of the "Palestinians" is Arabic, an import from Arabia.



    Assassination of Prophet Muhammad
    ( Section : Explanation )

    Dear Shaykh Yasser

    Can you cite the sources of your assertion that Aysha and Hufsa were involved in assassination of Mohammed (SAW)?

    Jaweed Ahmed


    In His Name the Most High,
    All praise is due to Allah, may peace be upon Muhammed and his pure progeny and may the curse of Allah be upon their enemies.
    Assalamu Alaikum,

    The Office Answer:

    There are a number of traditions from the Shi’ah and Bakri sources concerning the involvement of Aysha and Hafsa in assassination of Prophet Muhammad as previously stated by the Sheikh in many lectures. However, in order for us to cite the sources of these traditions, it might be useful to look at the following verse first.

    "And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful." (Sura 3:144).

    If we pay a closer attention to this section: “if then he died or is killed.” We find that it confirms that the Prophet would not die a natural death. Rather, it confirms that he would be killed. For the reason that the conjunctive (or) in this verse means “Rather” In Arabic, sometimes (or) indicates uncertainty and probability. In other contexts, it imparts correction.

    Since it is next to impossible that anyone should suspect Allah's word, since He has insight into the unknown, Allah must have intended to impart the other meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is:

    "If he died, rather, he is killed, you turn upon your heels."

    We hereby understand that the Prophet was to be killed and his assassination was to be followed by turning back and apostasy. This actually happened, and turned in favor of the rebels who seized power, i.e. Abu Bakr and Omar. Thus, it was particularly addressed to figures who were followers of Islam at the time of the Prophet and not to the Jews who were no longer a threat in Medina as the Bakries believe.

    How then was the prophet killed? And who were those involved in such a heinous crime? Was it really, as Aysha narrates, the Jewish woman Zainab Bint al-Harith who invited the Prophet and his companions after gaining victory over the Jews in the battle of Khaibar to a banquet; when she poisoned the meat she cooked causing the Prophet to die four years later!

    Ignoring the fact that the Battle of Khaibar actually took place in the seventh year of Hijra, while the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) died in the eleventh year. Is it really likely for a person to die because of a poisoned food he had consumed four years ago! Regardless of the fact that the effect of poison is immediate and even if it takes time it cannot exceed a few months in which the health condition deteriorates gradually; In addition to the fact that the prophet had no unusual health complaints and would participate in the battles throughout that intervening period!

    Or rather was the prophet poisoned by Aysha and Hafsa as commanded by their fathers Abu Bakr and Omar, which is evidenced in the Bakries' as well as Shi'as' books of Hadith? If we look at the following hadith reported by Bukhari from Aysha regarding the prophet's death, She relates:

    "Allah's Prophet told me on his death bed, 'Aysha, since I consumed that poisoned food after the Khaibar Battle, I have been in pain. Now it is the time for my heart to stop beating because of that poison." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol V, Page 137).

    Regardless of the fact that the Quran described Aysha and Hafsa as sinful wrongdoers whose hearts deviated from the true path in Chapter (Sura 66:04), we cannot trust Aysha's tradition about poisoning the Prophet for three important reasons.


    Pakistan has banned content on more than a dozen websites because of "offensive" and "blasphemous" material, while they themselves rank No. 1 for certain sex-related search terms, including "child sex," "rape sex," "animal sex," "camel sex," "donkey sex," "dog sex," and "horse sex".


    Pakistani Muslims are not alone in their search for porn.
    Google, the world's most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries - searching for sex-related sites - six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.


    Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, May 17, 2006
    Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:

    Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
    Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
    Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
    Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
    Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
    Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
    Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
    Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
    Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)