This is a Cult...Mas the Monster!!


For the non Muslim readers I have asked to visit this Blog in recent days, I would like to share a brief video with you all, in the faint hope you might be able to see this Cult for what it really is. The Cult leaders are a group of men of Pakistani/East African origin, who dominate the administrative framework, and at present, they are very angry at me for exposing a few home truths. They are searching for me high and low within the community; attempting to put the pieces together in the hope they will find me. They want me to shut up and to shut up for good, because they can't be having me embarrass them any further, by exposing their wicked ways.

I am a young(ish) woman, but in this Cult I was brought up in, they have very little respect for women. You see, they pretend to treat women well and hold them in high esteem when they present their community in front of Caucasian outsiders, but the reality is, women are second class citizens. They are routinely threatened with expulsion and ex-communication if they do not bow down to the demands of these leaders and their main leader, Mirza Masroor Ahmad. More on that later...

You see, I haven't done anything wrong, I am trying to expose a Cult in a modern day Britain. A Cult that is secretive and deceitful, yet portrays an image of being loving and care free to the outside world. They have well and truly pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. No one seems to listen, and they are after me because I have tried to expose the real side of the inside. They are trying very hard to track me down but so far, by the grace of Allah, they haven't been successful. Of course, nothing is impossible and nor do things go on forever, but they are trying hard and who knows, maybe one day, they might strike lucky. They are trying hard because I am a woman, and they know that if they get to me, they have a better chance of shutting me up because they will use my family against me. Women are emotional beings, and they will play on that to get me to shut up. I haven't done anything wrong, all I have done is expose their lies, scams and treacherous behaviour. 

They are telling people I gained this information illegally, but this is not true. I am in a position where this information is easy for me to get my hands on, as I have family in these offices. There was never a disclaimer with the paperwork and I feel its in the best interest of the Ahmadi and general public, that this information is exposed. There is hard evidence that they spied on innocent men who so happened to stumble across their religious centre, but it is me that is the villain? That's not fair. If they do find out who I am, they will really hurt my family. They prey on their brainwashed followers and cause them emotional and mental pain. It can be agonising for a family, and my family doesn't deserve it because I exposed the truth. I can't say I am scared for my life, but I worry for the health and well being of my elderly parents. These cowards will not only have me punished by any means necessary, they will punish my parents too. The easiest way to explain it is as 'Death by Association'. 

Anyways, I am glad you have all made contact and here is the video I promised I would link. It is a short clip, where Mirza Masroor Ahmad, whom I nicknamed Mas because he, in my opinion, deserves not to be addressed with respect for everything he has done, is addressing Ahmadi women in London. If you are a bit confused, Mas is the so called spiritual leader of this Cult, and he inherited the 'throne' back in 2003 following the passing of his Uncle Tahir. The other men mentioned on this Blog are his workers, who run the Cult's community. It was recorded back in 2006 and Mas threatens Ahmadi women with expulsion/being thrown out of the community, if they fail to cover up i.e. wear headscarves and burka coats

The video is in Urdu, but comes with subtitles. If you question the authenticity of the translation, please visit the official Ahmadiyya website by clicking on THIS LINK, where the full transcript of his speech is made available. By the way, 'Parda' means 'to cover up'.

I know Ahmadis more often than not like to point the finger at the Muslim world, saying they are backward and the women are treated badly and indeed in some respects, this is true. However, for a community that claims to be a cut above the rest, and one that is nothing like the backward 'terrorist fundamentalists' of the mainstream Muslim world, that's a bit rich! He forces us to wear scarves when we don't want to, but no Ahmadi woman will admit to that because she is too scared to speak out. They will sing his praises because they sincerely believe he is 'The Chosen One' and they wouldn't dare speak out against him, for fear of reprisals and also, God's wrath. Once I didn't wear it, and they called my house and threatened me with expulsion too. This was shortly after this address in 2006. My parents were distraught and were left humiliated. I never quite forgave them for that. I was even asked to leave home at one point, if I didn't obey this cruel man's orders so I was forced to wear the headscarf, just like a woman under Taliban rule. In Islam, a woman covers for the sake of Allah but Mas makes it about obeying him. In this Cult, we often fear this man monster more than God himself. That's not right, not in any religion. Don't you find it disturbing that in this video, Mas states that if a girl feels she has the right not to cover her head, then he has the right to kick her out of the community! Whoa! Is that fair? Is that right? They say we have a choice and that there is no compulsion in any religion, but it's not as easy as that when you are in a Cult. It is hard to explain, but in Pakistani Culture, pride and reputation plays a very big part in our lives. People fear for their reputations, their social lives, their honour and their dignity. And the Ahmadi Cult can ruin it all, in a flash.

This is the true face of the Cult leader. The very same Cult leader, when addressing non Ahmadi folk, will pretend everything is hunky dory. He has no qualms being in the company of non Ahmadi women, but this is the real face of this evil monster.He will rub shoulders with European women who are in skirts and sheer blouses, but this is how he talks to the women in his community behind closed doors.

Rafiq Hayat, Nasser Khan and Dr Shabir Bhatti all work for him and implement his wicked policies. They are also leaders of Mas's community and play a part in this torture of women and young girls. This is not Afghanistan in 1995 but this is London in 2012 and they should not be allowed to treat us this way.  Please do not support or assist this Cult or anything it stands for, because it's as good as supporting Mormonism and Scientology. Please do not be fooled by their rhetoric or by their slick presentation, this is a Cult and there are people trapped in here! Thank you.

Comments are not permitted on this post. Sorry guys. 


P Z Myers (associate professor of biology at UMM) takes issue with Hamza Tzortzis ...

Some of you may remember this great piece of theatre from the World Atheist Convention back in late 2011. Well, it seems that that P Z Myers has had some time to read Hamza's latest "paper" on the subject of embryology in the Qur'an and has published his thoughts on his blog: Pharyngula. Since I couldn't put it better myself, I reproduce below the Professor's searing polemic. Truly wonderful... 
I have read the entirety of Hamza Andreas Tzortzis’ paper, Embryology in the Qur’an: A scientific-linguistic analysis of chapter 23: With responses to historical, scientific & popular contentions, all 58 pages of it (although, admittedly, it does use very large print). It is quite possibly the most overwrought, absurdly contrived, pretentious expansion of feeble post hoc rationalizations I’ve ever read. As an exercise in agonizing data fitting, it’s a masterpiece.
Here, let me give you the short version…and I do mean short. This is a paper that focuses with obsessive detail on all of two verses from the Quran. You heard me right: the entirety of the embryology in that book, the subject of this lengthy paper, is two goddamned sentences, once translated into English.
We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.
Seriously, that’s it. You have just mastered all of developmental biology, as taught by Mohammed.

Tzortzis bloats this scrap into a long, tedious potboiler by doing a phrase by phrase analysis, and by comparing it to the work of Aristotle and Galen, who got lots of things wrong. How, he wonders many times, could Mohammed have written down only the correct parts of the Greek and Roman embryological tradition, and avoided their errors, if he weren’t divinely inspired? My answer is easy: because Mohammed only made a vague and fleeting reference to the science of the time, boiling down Aristotle’s key concept of an epigenetic transformation into a few non-specific lines of poetry. Aristotle and Galen got a lot wrong because they tried to be specific and wrote whole books on the subject; you can read the entirety of Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals. Galen was prolific and left us about 20,000 pages on physiology and medicine.
So, yes, you can find lots of examples in their work where they got the biology completely wrong, and it’s harder to do that in the Quran…because the Quran contains negligible embryological content, and what there is is so sketchy and hazy that it allows his defenders to make spectacular leaps of interpretation. Mohammed avoided the trap of being caught in an overt error here by blathering generalized bullshit, and saying next to nothing. This is neither an accomplishment nor a miracle.
I’ll go through his argument piece by piece, but at nowhere near the length. It’s hard to believe anyone is using this feeble fragment to claim proof of divinity, but then, Christians do exactly the same thing.
“essence of clay”. Tzortzis happily announces that clay contains “Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, Chlorine, Sodium, Magnesium and Silicon; all of which are required for human functioning and development”. These are irrelevant factlets. Clay is a fine-grained hydrous aluminum phyllosilicate; carbon, which is the element to consider in organic chemistry, is present as a contaminant, but the primary elements are aluminum and silicon. It’s nothing like the composition of the human body. This part of Tzortzis case is simply a lie.
“drop of fluid”. Tzortzis tells us that the Arabic word here is “nutfah”, which has a number of meanings, but he likes the interpretation that it implies mingled fluids. Then he babbles on about oocytes and spermatazoa and secretions of the oviduct, none of which are mentioned in the Quran and are completely irrelevant. Bottom line: Arabs noticed long ago that sex involves a mingling of fluids. Brilliant. I think most of us could figure that out without divine inspiration.
He spends a fair amount of time pointing out that both Aristotle and Galen had a male-centric view of procreation, where the man’s contribution was the dynamic agent and the woman was a passive vessel. They were wrong. In order to rescue the Quran, though, Tzortzis has to bring in Ibn Qayyim, a 13th century Islamic scholar, who pointed out that women have to provide a significant contribution to inheritance, since their traits are also present in the children. This, again, is an obvious and observable property, and the Greeks also argued over the relative contributions of male and female. There is nothing in the Quran that is beyond casual observation or non-existent in the scholarly works of the time.
“in a safe place”. Tzortzis quotes modern embryologists and throws around the terms endometrium, syntrophoblast, implantation, uterine mucosa, proteolytic enzymes, etc., etc., etc. I ask you, is any of that in the quoted verse from the Quran? No. Total bullshit from the apologists. That the embryo grows in a “safe place” — the woman’s belly — is another obvious property.
“a clinging form”. It seems that the word used here means just about anything.
The Qur’an describes the next stage of the developing human embryo with the word `alaqah. This word carries various meanings including: to hang, to be suspended, to be dangled, to stick, to cling, to cleave and to adhere. It can also mean to catch, to get caught, to be affixed or subjoined. Other connotations of the word `alaqah include a leech-like substance, having the resemblance of a worm; or being of a ‘creeping’ disposition inclined to the sucking of blood. Finally, its meaning includes clay that clings to the hand and thick, clotted blood – because of its clinging together.
I could call the embryo a sticky blob, too, and stretch and twist the words to match it in the vaguest possible way to a technical description, too…but it doesn’t make it a technical description, and it doesn’t make it informative.
This section concludes by claiming that the “leech” interpretation of ‘alaqah is accurate, because later in development it looks, he claims, like a leech. Only to a blind man. And further, he applies this term “like a leech” to every stage in the first month of development; the accuracy of the comparison seems irrelevant.
“a lump of flesh”. More of the same. Take the Arabic word (“mudghah”), throw out a bunch of definitions for the word, then force-fit them all into the actual science.
The next stage of human development defined in the Qur’an is mudghah. This term means to chew, mastication, chewing, to be chewed, and a small piece of meat. It also describes the embryo after it passes to another stage and becomes flesh. Other meanings include something that teeth have chewed and left visible marks on; and marks that change in the process of chewing due to the repetitive act.
No. I refuse. I’m sorry, but this is patently ridiculous. You do not get to quote the Quran talking about a chawed on scrap o’ meat, and then go on with four pages of windy exegesis claiming that corresponds to the 4th week of human development, the pharyngula stage, as if it is an insightful and detailed and specific description of an embryo. It is not. It is the incomprehending grunt of an ignorant philistine.
“into bones”. Yeah. There is a mingling of fluids in sex, and at birth you have a baby with bones. Somewhere in between, bones must have formed. You do not get credit for noting the obvious without any specifics. Furthermore, turning the phrase “into bones” (‘idhaam) into this:
There are clear parallels between the qur’anic `idhaam stage and the view modern embryology takes i.e. the development of the axial, limb and appendicular skeleton.
is pure hyperbole and bunkum. But then, that’s all we get from Tzortzis.
“clothed the bones with flesh”. Tzortzis now talks about myoblasts aggretating and migrating distally, formation of dorsal and ventral muscle masses, innervation of the tissue, and specification of muscle groups. Good god, just stop. The Quran says nothing about any of this. And then to complain that This level of detail is not, however, included in Aristotle’s description, is absurd and ironic. It’s not in Mohammed’s description, either.
It must be noted that the migration of the myoblasts surrounding the bones cannot be seen with the naked eye. This fact creates an impression of the Divine nature of the Qur’an and reiterates its role as a signpost to the transcendent.
Crap. The Quran doesn’t describe myoblast migration. There isn’t even a hint that Mohammed saw something you need a microscope to see.
“made him into other forms”. Then Allah did all the other stuff that he needed to do to turn a chunk of chewed meat made of bone and flesh into a person. Presto, alakazam, abracadabra. Oooh, I am dazzled with the scrupulous particularity of that scientific description.
There’s absolutely nothing novel or unexplainable in the Quran’s account of development. It is a vague and poetic pair of verses about progressive development, expressed in the most general terms, so nebulous that there is very little opportunity for disproof, and they can be made to fit just about any reasonable observation. They can be entirely derived from Aristotle’s well-known statement about epigenesis, “Why not admit straight away that the semen…is such that out of it blood and flesh can be formed, instead of maintaining that semen is both blood and flesh?”, which is also a very broad statement about the gradual emergence of differentiated tissues from an amorphous fluid.
Only a blinkered fanatic could turn that mush into an overwrought, overextended, overblown, strained comparison with legitimate modern science. Tzortzis’s paper is risible crackpottery.

A Question for the Ahmadi!

A Quick Question:
Does the Ahmadiyya Jamaat/Religion have its own 'Fiqh'? Yes or No below please.

For those Ahmadis who do not know the meaning of FIQH in short, refers to Islamic Jurisprudence/Law. I don't mean Islamic Jurisprudence, I mean Ahmadiyya Jurisprudence. Do they have something called 'Ahmadiyya Fiqh'?

I will explain one day, Allah Willing.

Secret Bible which predicts coming of Mohammed discovered by Daily Mail...

Secret Bible: The 1,500-year-old tome was is said to contain Jesus' early teachings and a prediction of the Prophet's coming
The Daily Mail has recently published an article that has the Muslim blogging community buzzing with excitement and self-righteousness.
The article claims that the "secret Bible", which has been "rediscovered" in Turkey, predicts the coming of Mohammed and denies the Trinity and the crucifixion of Jesus. (The Qur'an states that Jesus was a prophet and not the Son of God, that the Trinity is a pagan heresy and that Jesus wasn't crucified but was taken up to Heaven alive and someone else put on the cross in his place.)
This "Bible", it turns out, is a version of the Gospel of Barnabas -  which is known to exist in two copies which date from the 16th century. Wikipedia has this to say about the Gospel:
The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.

It was also mentioned in 1734 by George Sale in The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran:
The Mohammedans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St. Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Mohammed has followed in his Koran. Of this Gospel the Moriscoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish; and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a manuscript of some antiquity, containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel, made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. This book appears to be no original forgery of the Mohammedans, though they have no doubt interpolated and altered it since, the better to serve their purpose; and in particular, instead of the Paraclete or Comforter, they have, in this apocryphal gospel, inserted the word Periclyte, that is, the famous or illustrious, by which they pretend their prophet was foretold by name, that being the signification of Mohammed in Arabic; and this they say to justify that passage in the Koran where Jesus Christ is formally asserted to have foretold his coming under his other name Ahmed, which is derived from the same root as Mohammed and of the same import.
"Ah, but you are taking a very Judeo-Christian view of this discovery", Muslim apologists will say. So let us turn to an apparently academic study of the Gospel of Barnabas by a German Muslim specialist at the IslamInstitut, Prof., Dr. Christine Schirrmacher, Academic Director of the Islamic Studies Institute in Bonn
Dr Schirrmacher seems to be fairly dismissive of the gospel for the following reasons:

In the Gospel of Barnabas, the command is given by God to Mary and Joseph to keep Jesus away from wine, strong drink, and impure meat —that is, pork: the prohibition of pork and wine is, however, an Islamic prohibition, not a Christian one.
In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus announces the coming of Muhammad and already speaks the name of Muhammad. Jesus asks God to send Muhammad to save the world. In Jesus’time, no one knew that, six centuries after Jesus’ death, Muhammad, on the Arabian peninsula, would claim to be sent by God and to preach the truth. In the Christian view, it is impossible that Jesus announced Muhammad and asked God, his father, to send Muhammad Also inconsistent with the Koran is the oft-repeated statement in the Gospel of Barnabas that Muhammad is the Messiah, while it at the same time repeatedly denies that Jesus is the Messiah. It characterizes Jesus, however, as “chrissto” (Christ). The assumption, therefore, is that the author did not know that “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for “Messiah” (“the Anointed”).
The Gospel of Barnabas itself stresses that the original Biblical gospel was falsified. If Barnabas actually would have been a contemporary of Jesus, then the formation of the New
Testament would not yet have been concluded. With this statement, the Gospel of Barnabas would have forecast its own fate. In addition, his geographical and historical mistakes make clear that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas can neither ever have visited Palestine nor can he have lived in the first post-Christian century In the Gospel of Barnabas, Nazareth is a town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Nazareth,however, stands upon a hill some distance from the Sea of Galilee. According to the report in the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus ascends from the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum. Capernaum, however, lies directly on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. According to the description in the Gospel of Barnabas, Nineveh lies near the Mediterranean coast. It, however, is to be found in the interior on the banks of the Tigris.
The editors of the first Italian-English edition of the Gospel of Barnabas, Lonsdale and Laura
Ragg, in addition, point to conspicuous parallels between the Barnabas gospel and the works
of the great Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), such as La divina commedia (The Divine Comedy), and, in particular, to Dante’s representation of Heaven, Hell, and Paradise.So, for example, the number of nine or, including Paradise, ten heavens, as well as the subdivision of Hell into seven centers in the Gospel of Barnabas agrees with Dante’s discussion of the ten heavens...The most probable date of composition of the Gospel of Barnabas lies, for Lonsdale Ragg, between 1300 and 1350 Subsequent investigators have expanded this time span to aslate as the sixteenth century.
So what of the idea that this is a secret gospel, hidden from the public by embarrassed Christians? Let us turn to the professor again:

The endorsement of this gospel’s authenticity always goes hand in hand with the Muslim claim that the Christian church has attempted to conceal this true gospel from the public. The opposite, however, is the case: the first efforts to produce a complete text of the gospel were made by Christians in 1907. Since this time, the Gospel of Barnabas has been available in a number of languages. No one in Europe had any interest in a new apocryphal text before the increase of Muslim statements in favor of the gospel.
In conclusion then, what we have is another attempt by Muslims to try to lend authenticity to their religion by dubious, not to say, underhand means.
Muslim Educational Trust (MET) LAHORE (no date)
A typical miracle seekers attempt to convince readers that the Gospel of Barnabas is ancient and was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls

Post script: For those interested in how the Muslim miracle seekers lie to their own followers and to anyone else gullible enough to swallow their rubbish, here is a site sponsored by the Sabr Foundation all about how the Gospel of Barnabas is a genuine Gospel dating from the first century.

Mirza Ghulam Qadiani: Imposter or Prophet?

 Salaam. This was kindly emailed in from a Muslim brother, and it has been requested that I post this up for the benefit of the questioning Ahmadi, who is in genuine search for the truth. This makes for a really good read, especially if logic and reasoning is your thing! Take the time out to read this...
All praise be to Allah lord of all that exists and peace and blessings be on his slave and messenger Muhammed (saw).

The purpose of this article is to try and establish MGA’s claim to Prophethood. We will discuss using the Quran and Saheeh al Bukhari and original texts taken from the Ahmadiyya ‘Al-Islam’ website.    

In an extract taken from the Tajalliyat-e-Ilahiyyah p28  from the Ahmadiyya website MGA says:

“…No law-bearing Prophet can come after him. A Prophet who does not bring a new law can come, but he has to be a follower of the Holy Prophet sa first. On this basis, I am both an Ummati(follower) and a PROPHET. My Prophethood, i.e., my converse with God, is nothing but a reflection of the Prophethood of Muhammad sa. Apart from this my Prophethood is nothing. It is the same Prophethood of Muhammad sa which has manifested itself through me….”
Page 40 of the pdf page 28 of the book

So MGA claimed to be a Nabi, whose “prophethood” was the same Prophethood of the masterpiece of all Prophets’ Muhammed (saw).We will begin with an extract of the Quran which is commonly translated. 

Muhammed is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) The Messenger of  Allah, and the seal of the prophets:  and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Holy Quran (Yousif Ali Translation) 33:40

The Words Khatum-Annabiyeen in Arabic means the end of ALL PROPHETS, Seal of All PROPHETS, Last of ALL PROPHETS and Muhammed (saw) is mentioned by name.  There are numerous Hadith to support the understanding of this verse, but we won’t quote them all here, we will just give you a reference to one, look it up in Saheeh al Bukhari  The Book of the Merits of the Prophet and His Companions  Hadith number 735 (Abu Hurreira).

This immediately throws doubt on Mirza’s claim.  However we will continue to try and establish his claim to Prophethood. (Although this is a MAJJOOOOORRRRR STUMBLING BLOCK and there isn’t really anything that can be said about this in defence without spinning more than Sri Lanka's Murali).

All the Ambiya (Prophets) amongst various other virtues all had a one thing in common, TRUTH.

The Messenger of Allah, Holy Prophet (saws)  was extremely truthful it is narrated In the book on the Ahmadiyya website “The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets (Volume 1)” written by Mirzā Bashīr Ahmad M.A on  p147 (p171 on pdf)the following is said:
“It is due to such occurrences that Muḥammad saw became renowned as Amīn  among the Makkans. Moreover, as a result of his honesty, he was greatly revered in Makkah and was known as an exceptionally righteous individual who always spoke the truth.”

There really is no great point in going further, because everyone agrees on this issue, even the Ahmadi leadership, that Muhammad (saws) was truthful.
Again I STRESS, when talking of these matters it is very important to stick to original sources therefore I am only quoting from the Quran, Saheeh Al Bukhari  and the Rohaani Khazaain and the books presented on AlIslam, the official website of the Ahmadiyya.


Have a scan over this excerpt from Ruhani Khazain, a book written and published by MGA, the so called Promised Messiah. Here he makes a claim on Saheeh al Bukhari (whats new?!?):

All these 'Mullahs' always go on about this stuff but until I actually saw it on the website I thought it was all stuff they dug out of some old Tachee/Suit case but it is very much true.The 'Mullahs' were not lying or quoting out of context as Masroor and other Ahmadi leaders claim to be the case. The 'Mullahs' were telling the truth!

My Urdu isn’t great but you can see the words “saheeh Bukari” so he wasn’t talking about any baklava or a Bukhri (female goat) it is the respected book of Hadith Saheeh al-Bukhari and “Bukhari mein hein” which translates to “it is in bukhari” and then mentions “Asmaan se uss ke Ieyeh awaz aye gi”, which translates to “there will come a voice from the sky to him” saying “hatha khalifahtuallah al mahdi” which translates in Arabic as “This is The Khaliph of Allah the mahdi” these translations allow you to see the point in simple terms.  NOW this Hadith of the voice coming from the heavens is not mentioned anywhere in Saheeh al Bukhari, so you begin to question MGA’s integrity and then his motives... why was he fabricating Hadith? Why would a Prophet need to fabricate Hadith? This would be a show stopper in the court of British law and if this evidence was found about a witness where he had lied in open testimony his testimony would no longer be accepted.  However let’s say in the modern printing age where Millions of copies of Saheeh al Bukhari exist this Hadith was magically erased by the wet beards of the mullahs, we will continue. Ahmadis would do well to remember this:

Narrated Salama:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Whoever (intentionally) ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.

Another claim of MGA is that there is reference to Qadian in the Quran! Again, the Ahmadi leadership often throw it back at the 'Mullahs' saying they are 'lying' and he 'never said that', so I went straight to the horses mouth:

Here it reads: “khudah neh quran mein aur rasool neh Hadith mein jo kuch furmiyah tha woh uss(referring to himself in third person) keh aaneh seh pora huwa”. This translates to “whatever Allah and his messenger have said in the Quran and Hadith by him (third person reference) coming it has been completed” in the context this means he has come to complete the prophecies of Islam and is claiming to be the messiah isa (as). Mirza is constructing an argument here and he is establishing himself as an expert and adding weight to this opinion by reminding the audience claims to be.
He carries on until “Yaani mekah aur medina aur qadian ka”. Translates in Urdu as “for example mekah, medina and qadian”. I have highlighted this here so there is no mistake Mirza is talking about Qadian.
“Jo kuch burahain ahmdaiyah mein qadian ke bareh mein kushfi tuwr pur mein neh likha”. This translates in Urdu as  “what ever is written in burahain ahmadiyah about qadian It has been revealed to me and I have written what has been revealed to me”.
So from claiming prophethood, the author Mirza goes on to claim the divinity of his book implying burahain ahmadiyah is revelation that has been revealed to him as wahiy (divine revelation) so he positions himself as an expert in his field i.e. a prophet and then infers his book as the authority manifest so to speak. “kushfi tuwr pur mein neh likha”, “I have written what has been revealed to me” ”yaani ye keh uss ka zhikr quran shareef mein majood hein dur haqeeqat ye baat hein kyuunkeh ye yakeen umr hein”. This translates to in urdu “meaning that it(qadian) is mentioned within the quran and definitely this a true and that is certainly a fact”. By using the word “zhikr” which means mention, citation, recitation in this context along the word “majood” which means to be present. It cannot be argued this is a metaphorical proposition. Unless your name is Graeme Swann.  

Qadian is not mentioned in the Quran. Put simply, this is false. I challenge any Ahmadi out there to prove otherwise but as far as the Ulema is concerned, it is what it is: there is no mention of the word Qadian in the Quran anywhere. Ever. Period. However the argument construction is such that the reader listener feels inclined to accept what is said because it has been done on the authority of their spiritual leader and more importantly on the authority of the Quran and Hadith.

So let’s analyse this claim in logical terms mirza constructs an argument from authority also known as known as appeal to authority this being the authority of quran and Hadith to position himself as an equivocal authority.  So no one would dare question him, because if you question this, you are questioning Allah. Arguing from authority is a classic form of argument construction and is fallacious if the factual matter is incorrect as with any fallacy or if the expert is not credible.  Both nullifications have been satisfied here. 

He also uses Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.  He did this by claiming:

Predicate (A)
“Quran and Hadith’s prophecies have been completed through me appearing.”
I have completed the word of Allah by coming.
“I have written what has been revealed to me.”
I only write what Allah reveals to me.
Predicate(C) (THIS FACT IS FALSE) 
“I say Qadian is mentioned in the Quran.”
I am divinely revealing qadian is in the Quran.

A =>B, B =>C, C =>A ,  so if C is false in the factual sense. This destroys the whole chain of premise and invalidates the whole argument.  Not only this argument but all assertions, premises and conclusion he has ever made.  

So Mirza attests with certainty to something that is untrue and he KNOWS THIS. Bomb shell. This GUY INVENTED A LIE ABOUT THE QURAN (GODS WORD) what else is he capable of?  Then you have to ask why? Why would the so called messiah do this?  Can anyone answer why? If it is true, if it is a fact, then what will you say to AL-Mu’Adhib (the Punisher) on the day of judgement?  When hellfire sees you, roaring with rage.  (Q25:12). Your Mirza will not be able to help you then, as you line up behind your false Prophet. Come to the light side and the right side and the safe side before its too late!

Before we conclude I would like to remind you of this Ayaah in the quran

Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against Allah, or deny His Signs? But never will prosper those who sin.
(The Holy Quran, Yunus, 10:17)

Links to the al-islam website references have been provided for your convenience you can click on the links and it will take you right to the page(may take some time to load).  Rub your eyes and make sure its YOUR WEBSITE because it is.  And if this magically made to disappear from the wet beards of the mullahs I will not be surprised. 


The Hajj and the Saudi Religious Tourism bandwagon

London Muslim,one of my favourite Muslim bloggers (because he doesn't take himself too seriously and is not averse to a bit of google-whoring by posting pictures of scantily clad Muslim girls, all the while claiming moral outrage as he counts his hits) is off on the Hajj.
This got me to thinking about this goose which lays such sparkling golden eggs for the poor impoverished princes and sheiks of Saudi.
As every GCSE RE student knows, performing the Hajj (pilgrimage to the Ka'bah) is one of the pillars of Islam and every one of the more than two billion of the world's Muslims must perform it at least once in their lifetime (as long as they are fit and rich enough...).
Just imagine having a tourist attraction that 2 billion people are obliged to visit...

Actually we don't have to try too hard since a Guardian article entitled Mecca makeover: How the Hajj has become big business for Saudi Arabia from November 2010 has helpfully done some research for us:
Business reports conclude that Saudi tourism, especially the religious variety, is recession proof. The government's commission for tourism and antiquities said revenue from tourism this year would reach $17.6bn, then almost double again by 2015. Business Monitor International forecasts there will be 319,000 rooms, up from 218,000 in 2009 in Saudi Arabia.

The country's strengths, it adds, are its "strong and growing" religious tourism industry and, with some understatement perhaps, "the financial resources" for infrastructure investments.
I'll leave you with this heart-warming vision of modest faith-based accommodation available for the "pilgrims" which has recently won the prestigious World Travel Awards prize for leading "Luxury All Suite Hotel"
Raffles Makkah Palace Raffles Makkah Palace Declared World’s Leading Luxury All Suite Hotel by World Travel Awards
If you look carefully you can just about make out the faithful pilgrims in the foreground who are somewhat dwarfed by the Raffles Makkah Palace. As the awards site helpfully explains:
The hotel has been very carefully built in an Islamic architectural style and boasts of exceptional amenities. This award is the second significant award the hotel has received in just eight months. It is a proof of their dedication and unsullied service.
The suites in the hotel are spacious and extravagantly decorated but in harmony with the ambiance of the Islamic holy land of Makkah.(!)

I must admit I didn't know that having a f*cking great pastiche of the Big Ben clock tower perched on top of your grotesque hotel was "Islamic architectural style" - but we live and learn.
Anyway, good to know that the wonderful Saudi regime is sitting on such a gold-mine, isn't it? I mean, the oil can't last for ever, can it? Thank goodness Allah had the foresight to put the holiest shrine in Islam in such a deserving place, eh?

Human evolution and Islam

Islam is quite clear on the subject of human evolution: there was none.
This is how About explains the issue...
While Islam recognizes the general idea of the development of life in stages, over a period of time, human beings are considered as a special act of creation. Islam teaches that human beings are a unique life form that was created by Allah in a special way, with unique gifts and abilities unlike any other: a soul and conscience, knowledge, and free will. In short, Muslims do not believe that human beings randomly evolved from apes. The life of human beings began with the creation of two people, a male and a female named Adam and Hawwa (Eve).
Notice how the author already muddies the issue by confusing the idea of man and apes evolving from a common ancestor (what anthropologists believe and what we have evidence for) with man evolving from apes (what no anthropologist or scientist has ever suggested). Notice also the sly use of the word randomly - meaning what exactly in this context?

My Muslim friend and I were debating this issue some years ago. If, he said, "a missing link between men and apes" (meaning between man and his hominid ancestors) were ever discovered, he would abandon his faith since the creation of Adam and Eve as the originators of mankind is a basic tenet of Islam.

So what do Muslims make of the ever-increasing amount of fossil evidence for the so-called missing links. How do they fit homo erectus and homo habilis for example, into their world view?

Let us return to the Muslim view of the creation of Man for one moment as described once again by About Islam. (and lest anyone accuse me of picking on Islam here, let's remember that Mohammed got his "facts" from the Judeo-Christian creation stories, which in turn were borrowed from more ancient myths and so on and so on...)

The Qur'an describes how Allah created Adam: "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26). And, "He began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from a quintessence of fluid" (32:7-8). Thus, human beings have a fundamental attachment to the earth.

While the creation of Eve is not described in detail, the Qur'an does make it clear that a "mate" was created with Adam, from the same nature and soul. "It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her in love" (7:189). She is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, but in Islamic tradition she is known as "Hawwa" (Eve).

From these two individuals, generations of human beings have inhabited the earth. "Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)" (49:13).
As can be seen from the above surah, there is no escaping the very explicit reference to "two individuals" and "a single pair of male and female".
No Muslim can allow himself or herself to accept what modern science tells us to be our origins. If they do, they must, logically, reject their faith and will burn in Hell for all eternity...Because rememeber, Allah is "the most merciful of all those who are merciful"...

Doe this perhaps explain the despicable rantings of our favourite lunatic revert, Yusuf Estes?

Mirza Ghulam Qadiani's Zee TV Debut and Modelling for Billboards!


I want to share two things with you just for laughs! Nothing too serious, so let's all relax around here for once, especially after all the recent hoo hah!

Please take a look at this very short clip that someone kindly emailed me, advertising the 'Love for All, Hatred for None'  lies on Zee TV:

Qadiani's so called 'Messiah' makes a debut appearance on Zee TV; a behuda asian channel, with dancing girls and what have you not! True Islam having to resort to advertising on Zee TV? Seriously? I wonder if the Ahmadis are brave enough to actually include excerpts of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani's and his position on Hindus/Hinduism and his claims of being Krishna? I am sure the Indian viewers, a large proportion being Hindu, would LOVE to hear it! Go on Jamaat Ahmadiyya, don't be two faced now...

I hope Salman and Shahrukh Khan don't get jealous over the Ahmadi's answer to Amitabh Bachan AKA Mirza Ghulam Qadiani. Do you think he gives them a run for their money? Babe or what!!!

And this....

Click To Enlarge

How embarrassing! I don't think we need this Blog anymore, the Ahmadiyya is doing a grand job showing itself up! How utterly distasteful and how very Cult like! God's Messiah on a billboard? Seriously? And no, this hasn't been photoshopped, it is all very legit and very real!

Islamic troubles and the media...

This latest in reply to a letter from my Muslim friend in which he referred to the Lavon Affair to persuade me that the "troubles" in Nigeria and Sudan and elsewhere in the Muslim world were as likely caused by external instigators as by Muslims. He also stated that he was neither a detractor nor a supporter of the Iranian regime and suggested that we mustn't jump to conclusions each time the "media feed us a story" from an Islamic country. I get frustrated that he seems unable to admit any Islamic country might have itself to blame...

 I agree that Middle Eastern politics are murky and that often things are not as simple as they first appear. I agree that the Israeli secret services have carried out morally dubious operations. A pity you so often seem unwilling to admit any fault on the part of any Muslim nation. (even to the point of ignoring Islam's pivotal role in the slave trade, I seem to remember...)
With regards to Iran, of course none of us knows for sure what is going on there, but sometimes what we hear must make you at least a little concerned for the region (and the rest of the world...).
Here's a report I came across today:

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says uprisings in the Middle East region are part of the battle against Zionist autocracy in the world.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Zionists, US, and Western powers feel weak in the face of Islamic Awakening and “this feeling of weakness and defeat will grow by the day.”

The Leader said humanity is standing at a critical juncture and is on the verge of a “grand development.”

“Humanity has passed all material and ideological schools such as Marxism, Liberal Democracy and Secular Nationalism and is at the beginning of a new era,” the Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei further urged the revolutionary youths to vigilantly guard the fruit of their efforts and not allow arrogant powers to “hijack” and “derail” their revolutions.

The Leader stressed that despite social, historical and geographical differences, Muslim nations are “everyone is against the satanic US and Israeli dominance and cannot tolerate the cancerous tumor of Israel.” 

Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks in a meeting with foreign guests participating in the "Islamic Awakening and Youth Conference" in Tehran. The two-day event kicked off on Sunday with some 15-hundred participants from 73 countries.

The conference mainly focuses on the pivotal role of the youth in the wave of Islamic Awakening that is sweeping through the Middle East and North Africa. 

Heart-warming stuff, eh? Does it make the hair stand up on the back of your neck? Do you feel a swelling in your Islamic breast?
I'm joking. But I'm not sure the Ayatollah was. And certainly the blood-thirsty anti-Semitic morons who left their comments at the end of the article didn't think he was joking, either.

Understandably your first reaction might be to distrust the report's authenticity (and perhaps blame it on Zionist/US/Western etc etc. fear mongering) 
The fact that I found this on Press TV (I assume you agree Press TV is unlikely to have Western bias or swallow lies fed to them by the West...) should go some way to reassure you. 
But I'm sure they're all really peace-loving, misunderstood friendly chaps who follow the Prophet's injunction to love thy neighbour (oh no - that was the other chap, wasn't it...) and there's nothing at all to worry about. But just in case... I think it may be worth watching developments pretty closely from now on...

AN alarming number of under-age girls – some as young as nine – are being forced into marriage in Islington, according to a leading campaign group.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO) claim that at least 30 girls in the borough  were forced into marriage in 2010.
The practice was condemned by the Imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, who said such marriages were against Islam and “unacceptable”.
He pledged to invalidate any marriage which he said were carried out by “back-street Imams”.
IKWRO, which made headlines last month when they revealed there had been almost 3,000 “honour-based” violence cases in 2010, has shown the Tribune records which revealed at least three 11-year-old girls and two nine-year-olds had been forced into marriage with older men within Islington. The oldest girls involved were 16.
They have warned that hundreds of Islington girls could be suffering sexual, emotional and physical scars as a result of the child marriages every year and are calling for teachers, social workers and police to be better trained to spot and manage the abuse.
Dianna Nammi, director of IKWRO, explained that the girls are married in a mosque’s sharia court. This means they are not legally married according to British law, rendering the Home Office unable to recognise or prove the abuse.
“They are still expected to carry out their wifely duties, though, and that includes sleeping with their husband,” she said.
“They have to cook for them, wash their clothes, everything. They are still attending schools in Islington, struggling to do their primary school homework, and at thesame time being practically raped by a middle-aged man regularly and being abused by their families. So they are a wife, but in a primary school uniform.
“I have heard of this happening in Islington by back-street imams. They are imams who have little knowledge of Islam – they are not educated, and they simply lead prayers, and yes they will do this and it is very quietly kept a secret with no one admitting to it.
“Islam says both parties must truly consent in their hearts, and if the girl was forced into it in any way then she can invalidate her Sharia marriage with or without the husband’s permission.
“I will personally do that for anyone who comes to me. This is simply child abuse, as a child does not know what they are doing.
“My heart goes out to the girls.”
Imam Saad explained that Sharia law stated an individual can marry when they begin puberty, with the most important stipulation being that they are “rushd”, or mature enough to understand marriage.
A spokesman for the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) said he was “unsure” whether the lack of legal status of the marriages affected whether the they could intervene or not, but directed the Tribune to government practice guidelines on dealing with forced marriage.
Presumably you'll say that this is not what Islam advises or teaches. But aren't you supposed to follow the Prophet's example? And it seems fairly clear to me that this is what these "uneducated back-street Imams" are doing:

Sahih Bukhari 7.62.88: "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)."
Why does God allow his religion to be so misunderstood? Why do so many who follow Islam get the wrong end of the stick and use it to excuse hatred and bullying, genital mutilation and rape? Why, if Islam is truly the final revelation, is it so abused and misused? Why did God make it so easy to misinterpret that it seems to have a higher proportion of "misunderstanders" than any other religion? Have you considered these questions? 

Islamic Hell - Allah must be evil

A recurring theme in my discussions with my Muslim friend is the Islamic concept of Hell. How is it, I ask him, that the "Most Merciful of all those who are merciful" can consign his creation to everlasting torment. Does it seem just that my (God given!) curiosity should lead  me to use logic and science to reject faith and then punish me by burning the skin off my back for eternity.
If such a God does exist then he is most surely an evil God and we should reject Him.
The above video makes the point very clearly. Do please watch it.