Truth is not Insult

Muslim Terrorists Cow the UK Publisher to Apologize 

By: Ali Sina

On November 10^th the Muslim Public Affair Committee, MPAC, The CAIR’s counterpart in UK published an angry letter, condemning the publisher Amber Books of UK of blasphemy. The furor is over a book called The History of Punishment that Amber Books has published recently.

The book is not about Islam at all. Their site explains: '"The History of Punishment" offers a complete view of this fascinating subject, beginning with the laws and punishments of the ancient Mesopotamians and the Code of Hammurabi, and coming right up to date with present-day practices, including imprisonment, corporal punishment and the death penalty. Covering both legal codes and their accompanying punishments, this book includes chapters on ancient methods of punishments, such as Biblical punishments, Roman punishments and Sharia Law.”

So, why the Muslims are fuming? It is because that book contains this picture of Muhammad surrounded with naked women.

MPAC asks the Muslims to complain to the publishers, making the following points:

• To Muslims it is very important never to make any pictorial representations of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The publication of the illustration on page 36 of 'The History of Punishment' by Lewis Lyons is therefore very upsetting to Muslims.
• This illustration is particularly offensive because it shows the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) surrounded by naked women, thereby characterising him as a lecherous womanizer. This nudity is also especially hurtful because Islam teaches that women should dress modestly in public.
• This image should therefore be removed from the publication immediately. Please could you inform me of your actions on this matter.

I think we should write to the publishers and thank them for the picture. Muslims are too sensitive about their religion and ready to riot and kill anyone who in their view makes mockery of their faith, while they constantly mock other beliefs. The remedy to that is not silence but to desensitize them with a barrage of articles that unveils Islam. As for mocking Islam it is enough to quote a hadith or a verse from the Quran. These books do a fairly good job in making Islam look ridiculous and asinine.

The more people publish articles unveiling Islam and print scandalous pictures of Muhammad the sooner Muslims will realize that they cannot keep the world silent through whining, playing victims, threatening and hooliganism.  

If people are allowed to make fun of Jesus why no one should be allowed to make fun of Muhammad?

Making fun of Jesus and his agony and crucifixion may be distasteful; however painting Muhammad having orgy with his numerous young wives is depicting the truth. Why should truth offend the Muslims?

My question to Muslims is why the fact that Muhammad had sex with a multitude of women, some his wives, some his maids, some his right hand possessions (captives of war)  and some his concubines does not offend you but mentioning it is offensive to you?

Why the fact that Muhammad assassinated his opponents, massacred his prisoners of war, had sex with a 9-year-old child, raided and looted merchant caravans, invaded unarmed civilians and poor villagers does not hurt the Muslims' sensibility but talking about them does?

Instead of being offended, may be the Muslims would do a favor to themselves to ponder upon the following hadith and ask themselves; doesn’t this make Muhammad a lecherous womanizer?

Bukhari Vol.7 Book.62 Number.6
Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.

The truth is however that Muhammad was not a supper sexual. At his old age, he probably was impotent. But this does not mean that he did not have sexual thoughts and sexual reveries. He loved to fondle his young wives and play with them when they were naked.

Bukhari Vol.1 Book.6, Number.299
'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 (dress worn below the waist) and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

May be he was not very much in control. May be he just couldn't do it. In fact it is very likely that he could not have sex with his wives. He was too old. How come, despite all that fondling and "going round" all the night none of his young wives and concubines bore him any child? At that time there were no birth control devices and Muhammad longed to have a son. Muhamamd had four grown up daughters from his first Marriage with Khadijah. But none from his younger wives and concubines that he had in his household during the last 10 years of his life. Actually he thought it was humiliating to have just daughters when everyone else had sons.

He mocked the Quraish for believing Allah had three daughters.

Quran 53.19-22 
Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, 
And another, the third (goddess), Manat? 
What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? 
Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!

He wrote that when he was still in Mecca, and perhaps when his son who died at infancy was still alive. Why should it be unfair if God had only daughters? What is so humiliating and wrong in having just daughters and no sons? Doesn’t this show that Muhammad thought fathering sons is more prestigious than fathering daughters?

Obviously Muhammad wanted to have a son and he did try to have sex with all his young wives. Nevertheless he was impotent and could not do more than fondling. So instead of having sex he used to have illusions of having sex.

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect).  

The illustration of Muhammad with his naked wives should not offend the Muslims. What is denigrating is their belief in such a man as a messenger of God. If Muslims do not wish their belief ridiculed, they have to stop believing in a man of such a low moral character as Muhammad instead of trying constantly to hide their dirty laundries.

MPAC says: “This humiliation will not stop while most Muslims remain too pacified to lift a finger to stop this”.

Is that another threat of violence? Is rioting and demanding the execution of Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin or murdering 200 Christians in Nigeria when a journalist said Muhammad probably would have wanted to marry one of the contestants in the Beauty Pageant, the sign of the pacified Muslims?  

The author also says nudity is not allowed in Islam and Islam teaches that women should dress modestly in public. We all have seen the Islamic dress code for women. It is not modesty but subjugation. However, this illustration does not show the wives of the prophet in public but how they dressed (or rather undressed) in private just to please and excite the last messenger of God. 

In fact Allah seemed to be too keen to meet the sexual needs of his beloved messenger while he continued murdering, looting and pillaging innocent civilians. In the Sura Tahrim Allah tells his prophet 

33.50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Indeed Allah was too merciful to the prophet, but not so much to his victims. 

The Islamists have started their campaign of terrorization and intimidation to cow the publisher to remove their book. I suggest we write to the publisher and offer our solidarity and support. Muslim hooligans should not be allowed to attack our freedom of speech with threats of violence. 

There are books written against Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and every other religion under the sun or in the cave. Yet the Muslims are the only ones who protest and try to silence anyone writing against their religion. It is time that we all stand against this Islamic bullying and defend our freedom of thought, speech and pen.

Thousands of Muslims must have filled the mailbox and jammed the phones of the publisher with threats and hate messages. Please call them (the publishers) or send them an email and tell that you defend their right to freedom of expression. By doing so you are defending your own rights and freedoms. 

E-mail to: [email protected]

Or Telephone: 0207 520 7600

I sent the link to the above article to Amber Books and this is what I received within a second through their autoresponder.

Amber Books Ltd sincerely apologises for any offence that has been caused by the inclusion of a pictorial representation of the Prophet Muhammad on page 36 in the book entitled 'The History of Punishment'. Amber Books are currently discussing this issue with the Muslim Council of Britain who are advising Amber Books on the best course of action

This means that the Islamists are accosting the publishers and through threats and intimidation have cowed them into submission. If we do not stop this, soon no one will be able to whisper a word against Islam and they will continue to take over your country through their campaign of fear mongering lies and deceits. Please give as much publicity to this case as you can. It is your freedom and the freedom of your children that is at stake. 

Circulate this article and send it to every one in your mailing list. Send it to the magazines and sites that are patriotic, want to preserve freedom and are willing to listen. Freedom is precious. I should know that. I come from a country that allows no freedom to its citizens (Iran). And I warn you that if you become too complacent of your freedom, you'll risk losing it.     

Comment Here