Thoughts of a nationalist Indian

IN MEMORY OF FAKHRA YUNUS

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/victim-acid-attack-commits-suicide/story?id=16011971#.T3OOKhhsCEI


Let us all honour her memory, and pray for her peace. Always remember: women are Islam's first victims. Islam is a male-dominated cult. As such, it views women (both its own, and those of the kafirs) as not much more than property of men. And when men are raised in such an environment, they cannot countenance their "property" speaking back to them, defying them, asserting itself. When they see this, they react in the manner that Fakhra Yunus experienced.

For an hour or so after I read the story of Fakhra, I was truly numb. Then I thought that the least I can do is post this blog in her memory. Fakhra, you were truly brave. You will not be forgotten. You rose above that society that did this to you, and you became immortal. Your pain and suffering will not be in vain. May you rest in peace in those higher abodes where none of the suffering that you experienced in this life will follow.

As a mark of respect, I am not posting any pictures on this article. Readers of this blog will remember Fakhra as a young, extremely beautiful woman, full of life and spirit. Continue Reading...

Another young Hindu girl abducted, converted in Pakistan

In the past few months alone, 96 Hindus, mostly young girls, have been abducted in muslim Pakistan, converted, and married to local muslim boys. The latest is a 17 year old girl called Rinkle Kumari. Her story has also been carried by the BBC, which you can read here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-17272943

But the best coverage is by the blogger Hindu existence. Please read the story (with more pictures) here:
http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/

Look at the photograph of poor young Rinkle covered in an Islamic burkha.

If you are ANY human being, and your blood does not boil when you read this, then there is something seriously wrong.

Islam is dangerous. It pretends to be all nice and "beautiful" while they are in a small minority. Once they are in majority, the first thing that happens, always, is that Kafir women start "disappearing".

The time to stop Islam is NOW!! Please do not delay in your own conviction, and your own action. We must all unite and stop Islam.

I ask all my readers: please forward news about this young girl Rinkle to at least one other person. I don't care if you forward my blog link,or the BBC link, or whatever, just do it. That is the least we can do.

To my American readers: these Pakistanis are the same ungrateful people who hid Osama in their backyard, all the while fooling you with canards such as "he has kidney failure, he is probably dead by now" etc. To my British readers: we are in this together. These are the same people who were running a flesh ring with young British girls in Britain! Unless we stop looking the other way, Islam will continue victimizing young "Kafir" women. Continue Reading...

"Allah": Mohammed's Ventriloquist Dummy

When I began studying Islam about 10 years ago, I did so with the honest intent of finding something spiritual there. As a devout Hindu, I believe that no one path can lay exclusive claim to the truth, and that the search for truth is ever ongoing. In that spirit, I wished to read about other religions as well.


What I found was that Islam is not exactly a religion in the way we understand it. It is a political system that was invented by one man - Mohammed. Why did he claim it was a religion (and all that baloney about being in touch with "Allah")? Upon a careful reading of the Kuran and Hadith, it becomes clear that Mohammed was like any other charlatan claiming an exclusive relationship with God. He was neither the first charlatan to claim this, nor the last. In the past few decades itself, we saw many "mini-Mohammeds". There was this guy called David Koresh in Texas (USA) who made similar claims. He too was having sexual relationships with many women, including several very young women. The only difference between him and Mohammed is that he (David Koresh) lived in an age where he could not get away with it. The FBI attacked his compound where he was practising Mohammed-like things, and he was killed. In Mohammed's time, a few desperadoes could impose this new "religion" called Islam upon many unsuspecting arabs, at the threat of death. That is the ONLY difference between these two charlatans.

Anyway, when you view this video, keep in mind one thing. Would God - who has the entire universe to worry about - be bothered to send verse after verse covering for Mohammed's sexual misdeeds? Would God send verses allowing Mohammed to bed any "believing woman who offers herself", and at the same time threaten Mohammed's wives with dire consequences if they indulged in adultery? What kind of "God" is this Allah, anyway? The answer is - Allah is not God. Allah is just the ventriloquist dummy of a charlatan named Mohammed. You see, this charlatan never had any spiritual experiences. He made up this whole act. It is absolutely clear that this is the case when you read the Kuran and Hadith.

The happy ending for Mohammed was that he had a LOT of sex (66 women in total, not bad for a bedouin camel hearder), and a LOT of power. His henchmen murdered men and women who so much as uttered any doubt about Mohammed's "prophethood."

Anyway, enjoy the video.

Continue Reading...

Mohammed's Obsession with Farting

In another post, we have seen how the "prophet" Mohammed was obsessed with the most trite of things. He liked to give lessons on how to urinate (sitting or standing), for example. This should not surprise anyone. Islam is a total mind control cult, and such cults always try to control every little detail of a person's life, thereby turning the person into an automaton who will do whatever the cult leader (Mohammed) wants without questioning. 


Anyway, let us observe this phenomenon again. In this case, Mohammed spends Hadith after Hadith on the profound issue of farting. I kid you not. I will reproduce the Hadith, from no less a Hadith collection than Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith collection. 

Let us start. 

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The prayer of a person who does ,Hadath (passes, urine, stool or wind) is not accepted till he performs (repeats) the ablution." A person from Hadaramout asked Abu Huraira, "What is 'Hadath'?" Abu Huraira replied, " 'Hadath' means the passing of wind from the anus." 

So it seems that farting renders a muslim's prayer null and void. Let us continue.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 139:

Narrated 'Abbas bin Tamim:
My uncle asked Allah's Apostle about a person who imagined to have passed wind during the prayer. Allah' Apostle replied: "He should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something."

So one should constantly apply the smell test during prayer to ensure that other muslims are not farting!

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 436:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The angels keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, 'O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him."

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 86:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah does not accept prayer of anyone of you if he does Hadath (passes wind) till he performs the ablution (anew)."

Continue Reading...

Are muslims "Indians first" or "muslims first"?

Those who have no understanding of Islam keep asserting that muslims and Hindus both can and should be Indians first. Indeed, most Hindus would not disagree with being Indians first. But what about muslims? Islam does not permit allegiance to any state besides an Islamic state. Indeed, it makes it the duty of all muslims to try and convert their existing state into an Islamic state, by means of war or any other means at their disposal. Islam permits allegiance only to the muslim "ummah", nothing else.

I found a very clear statement to this effect in the readers comments section of the following news:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Khamenei-urges-Muslims-to-help-Kashmir/articleshow/6935375.cms

I reproduce below the muslim reader's comment. 

Londoner (London)
5 hrs ago (03:44 AM)
I see many posts asking Muslims whether they are Indians/nationalist first or Muslims. Let me clarify this for everyones sake. Muslims are Muslims first. No matter in which part of world they are putting up. "There is no concept of nationalism in Islam" period. Islam does not believe in dividing people in the name of natons, colors, sects etc. Everyone deserves equal treatment. Black can stand shoulder to shoulder with white to offer prayers in same Masjid. Can eat together on same dasterkhwaan(dining mat). No one is superior/inferior. Thats is the reason why there used to be 1 Khalifa for all 47 Islamic countries prior to WWII. To breakdown the overall strength and unity of Muslims,  imperialists/zionists launched nationalism propaganda as a result of which last Khalifa empire - Ottoman emipre came to an end. But inshallah the time will come soon when we have one nation one Khalifa.

I ask my Hindu readers to stop their idiotic insistence that Islam behave in a "secular manner." India's secularism is a sham upon Hindus only. It is a one way street, with Hindus asked to completely deracinate themselves, deny their Hinduness, while the other side is not only encouraged to assert their Islamic identity, but even pampered when they do so. Wasn't it our Prime Minister who recently said that "Muslims have the first right to India's resources." Can you imagine what a furore it would cause if an Indian PM had said "Hindus have the first right to India's resources." And can you even imagine a muslim PM in a muslim country saying about any minority group that it had the first rights to that country's resources?  Hindus are living in fool's paradise. Muslims (as a community) are living by their Kuran. Sure, there are exceptions, but as a community we should not expect them to suddenly forsake the primary diktats of their religion and say "muslim-kafir bhai bhai." Continue Reading...

Mohammed: The Debauched "Prophet"

 (Description of Mohammed's libido in Hadith Sahih Bukhari. Image courtesy sheikyermami.com)

The licentious and depraved sexual behaviour of the "prophet of Islam" is a matter that shames many muslims (those that are aware of it - many are not).  This blog post is about a courageous publisher who was killed for the "blasphemous act" of simply reproducing Hadith that describe this shocking sexual depravity by the "prophet" of Islam. 

In 1927, a Hindu (Arya Samaji) publisher named Raj Pal published a book titled "Rangeela Rasul" (the debauched prophet) in the Punjab province of the then undivided India. The book contained material from the Hadith, Sira, Tabari etc. (all Islamic sources) that showed just what kind of sexual licentiousness Islam's founder indulged in.  

At that time, Punjab had a muslim majority population, and Raj Pal's act was indeed a very courageous and daring one. As per all schools of Islam, the punishment for a person who insults the Prophet Mohammed is death. Accordingly, many attempts were made on his life by practicing muslims, and after many such failed attempts, he was murdered by a practicing muslim named Ilm Din in 1929. Ilm Din, through this act of murder in accordance with Islamic tradition, became a hero to fellow muslims, and a "ghazi" (a killer of Kafirs). 

(This preceded the similar murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands by several decades.)

Many instances of Mohammed's debauched behaviour are described in the book. 
In another post, we have already discussed the "prophet" Mohammed's proclivity to kill men and rape their wives (sometimes on that very day). There is much more evidence in the Hadith and Sira that Mohammed was quite a sex maniac. Not only did he go on a marrying spree after this wealthy and influential first wife Khadija died, he acquired many sexual slaves (concubines) through the numerous Jihads on the hapless polytheists and jews of arabia.


What did he do with his "stable" of wives and concubines? The Hadith record his sexual acts with quite some pride. I reproduce some of the relevant Hadith below. All are from Hadith Sahih Bukhari - considered the most authentic and reliable Hadith collection.  They describe what we could refer to as Mohammed's "sexual olympics".

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Note the pride with which the early muslims viewed their "prophet's" sexual prowess. It also speaks volumes about the kind of people who had gathered around Mohammed. Most decent people would view this kind of behavior (not to mention the very fact of having so many wives) with some disgust. But not the early muslims. Why? Reading the Hadith and Sira, it becomes quite clear that the people who had gathered around Mohammed were largely the scoundrels of arab society. Many had been drawn by the lure of war booty and sexual slaves that Mohammed would pass them after his raids on polytheists and jews. Just like criminals often rave about how bloodthirsty their godfather is, the early muslims raved about their "prophet's" sexual prowess. Read on.

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 270:
Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

on the authority of his father that he had asked 'Aisha about the saying of Ibn 'Umar(i.e. he did not like to be a Muhrim while the smell of scent was still coming from his body). 'Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Apostle and he went round (had sexual intercourse with) all his wives, and in the morning he was Muhrim (after taking a bath)."

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 282:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

It seems Mohammed and Aisha were quite the steamy couple. Try hard as she might, she could not get his semen off his clothes. Read on.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

Once again, I ask readers to verify every single Hadith for themselves. I have taken all  I am not making up a single word in any of the above. 


Next we come to the "prophet's" behaviour towards his stable of women when they were having their menstrual period. I reproduce the relevant Hadith, again only from Sahih Bukhari.

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:

(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300:

Narrated Maimuna:
When ever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

Dedication: I dedicate this blog post to the courageous Shri Raj Pal, and the author of the book Shri Chamupati. You can download the book Rangeela Rasul in Hindi here.



Continue Reading...

Islam's "perfect man" Mohammed: A torturer and a rapist

Continue Reading...

Status of Hindus under Islamic rule

Ala-ud-din Khilji can justly be called the first muslim ruler of a large part of India. Till his reign, Islamic rule only extended in a corridor starting from Delhi, and entering today's UP and parts of Bihar. Of course, Islamic rulers continually attacked and ravaged lands outside this region as well, but were not able to establish any sort of consistent rule there. Hindu counter-offensives would often sieze back land lost to Islam within months, if not weeks. This see-saw was witnessed in large parts of north-central India. Anyway, back to Ala-ud-din. His history is recorded in some detail by Ziaundin Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. I reproduce the piece of the history that deals with Ala-ud-din's treatment of Hindus who had fallen into his subjecthood.

'Aláu-d dín was a king who had no acquaintance with learning, and never associated with the learned. When he became king, he came to the conclusion that polity and government are one thing, and the rules and decrees of law are another. Royal commands belong to the king, legal decrees rest upon the judg­ment of kázís and muftís.

Notice that as a "good muslim ruler", he consults the kazis and muftis (Islamic holy men) for guidance on what the Kuran and Hadith command a muslim ruler to do as regards his kafir subjects.

Kází Mughísu-d dín, of Bayánah, used to go to court and sit down in private audience with the amírs. One day, when the efforts were being made for the increase of the tribute and of the fines and imposts, the Sultán told the Kází that he had several questions to ask him, and desired him to speak the plain truth. The Kází then promised to answer in accordance with what he had read in books.

The learned kazi assures Ala-ud-din that he will instruct him as per Islamic law (namely, the Kuran, Hadith, and Sira). Now let us see what these say about how Hindus are to be treated.

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.’ To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.’”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.


Continue Reading...

The Hindu temples that were destroyed

Robert Spencer - author of several books on Islam - calls it like it is.  Go to 11:26 of this video where he talks about the thousands of Hindu temples destroyed by Islam, and replaced by mosques.  The two books by Sri Sita Ram Goel that he refers to in his lecture are "Hindu temples - What happened to them?", parts I and II. They can be read online here:


http://www.voi.org/books/htemples1/
http://www.voi.org/books/htemples2/

Just the "cut and paste"s of the various muslim historians boasting about so-and-so Hindu temple has been destroyed, and converted into a mosque runs into 170 pages! 

The point of this post is this: An honest intellectual (Robert Spencer), speaking in the United States of America, thousands of miles away, says it like it is. But our own Marxist "historians" spend their entire lives fabricating fairy tales about a "golden period of Islamic India", deliberately suppressing the page after page of Islamic evidence of their deeds aimed at the total destruction of Hindu civilization. Just how criminal is that?

Continue Reading...

No mosque at ground zero

This blog expresses its opposition to the construction of a mosque (or "Islamic center", or whatever else they wish to call it) at ground zero. For the following simple reason. The 3000+ Americans who were murdered by the hijackers of the planes that flew into the world trade center were murdered IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. The hijackers were devout muslims, acting in the name of Islam. I believe they even yelled "Allah-o-akbar" as the planes flew into the WTC.

Whatever be the other debates around the topic, there can be no doubt about this fact: the murderers claimed to be doing their evil deeds in the name of Islam.

This should be reason enough to not even consider building any Islamic building there. Doing so would be the greatest insult to those innocent Americans who died there.
We support America in its struggle against Jihad. In return, we ask America to support us in our 1400 year old struggle against the SAME Jihad. Jihad is Jihad - it is the doctrine Mohammed invented in order to subjugate "infidels" and loot their property and rape their women. It is as simple as that. Any attempts to obfuscate this plain fact (by calling it "inner struggle" or whatever else) is simply an insult to our intelligence. There are entire chapters in the Hadith asking muslims to get on their horses with their swords and kill infidels in the name of Jihad.

Building an Islamic center at ground zero is part of that Jihad. This blog calls it for what it is and opposes it.
To our American friends - we are in a war together. The sooner we realize this, the better for both of us.

Continue Reading...