The lies and deception in “The Arrivals”


Arrivals of Deception

Having heard much about, “The Arrivals,” I finally watched the series. I thought I could learn something, but then realized that something was amiss. I write these words to awaken the overly trusting to points which might have been overlooked.

  • Unauthentic “Research”

Certain “facts” are in fact plain conjecture. Other facts which can easily be researched are simply copied and pasted without verification. For example, quotations are simply extracted from the audio, From the Shadows, including the most glaring error claiming that the Freemasons realized their error in France when they lost control of Napoleon. They therefore made certain that when they later inspired the American Revolution that they installed a Freemason, George Washington.

The producers make much of their “research” yet as Americans, they should know a basic fact that the Treaty of Paris terminating the Independence War was signed in 1783, which is 16 years before Napoleon came to power in 1799. Did the Masons then invent a time travel machine to install George Washington back in 1775? Incidentally Washington died in 1799, the year Bonaparte came to power and broke away from Masonic control. How could the French Revolution possibly have been before the American Revolution?

If these widely available facts are mysteries to these great researchers, why should we trust them on their novel, obscure claims?

  • Brazen distortion of Qurān and Ḥadīth

Our interpretation of Qurān and Ḥadīth is what Allāh and His Rasūl (pbuh) taught us, via the chain of the Ṣaḥābah (R.A), Mufassirūn and Muḥaddithūn. Aḥādīth warning against personal interpretations are well known.

Perhaps the most detailed Ḥadīth describing ad-Dajjāl is narrated by an-Nawwās bin Sam‘ān in al-Imām Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ, Chapter on the Mention of ad-Dajjāl. It is quite lengthy, but based on the print version where it covers 16 lines; the producers conveniently only quote a half-a-line to suit their purpose. Due to the length I only mention the relevant parts below:

ن النواس ابن سمعان…… انه خارج خلة بین الشام و العراق ….قلنا یا رسول الله و لبثه فى الأرض قال أربعون یوما یوم كسنة و یوم كشهر و یوم كجمعة و سائر أیامه كأیامكم قلنا یا رسول الله فذلك الذى كسنة أ تكفینا فیه صلاة یوم قال لا اقدروا له قدره

An-Nawwās bin Sam‘ān (r.a) narrated…. [Rasūlullāh (pbuh) said that ad-Dajjāl] will emerge on the road between ‘Irāq and Syria….We asked, “O Rasūlullāh,” How long will he stay on earth?”He replied, “Forty days. A day like a year, and a day like a month, and a day like a week, and the rest of his days will be like your days.”“O Rasūlullāh,” we asked, “That which is like a year, will the Ṣalāh of a day suffice us in it?’“No,” he replied, “Calculate for it according to its extent.”

The producers make the following claims:

* Ad-Dajjāl has already emerged.

* The first day represents his rule in England, starting in 900 of the Christian era.

* The English monarchy started in 900. The second day represents his rule in America, starting in 1917.

* The third day represents his rule in Palestine, starting in 2001.

The unbiased will realize:

* England and “between Iraq and Syria” cannot be the same.

* The continuous monarchy of England is dated from the reign of Egbert in 829. Is Arrivals deliberately lying to get their date of 900?

* The question of the Ṣalāh, clearly shows that the Ṣaḥābah (RA) understood the prophecy to mean that a normal 24 hour day will be extended to a year.

* This is in line with the clear, uncomplicated Dīn which Rasūlullāh (pbuh) brought us.

* The esoteric UK-US theory seems more in line with Masonic thinking.

Let the unbiased ask, “Has there been a single day since 900, when the day had to be shortened to 24 hours and divided into 5 for Ṣalāh purposes?” Obviously this has never happened in the general world, except for the poles, which is a permanent feature. If we accept the producers’ theory, we must accept one of two possibilities: Rasūlullāh (pbuh) did not know the real meaning of his prophecy, but the producer did! The stupidity of such a belief is self-evident. Rasūlullāh (pbuh) knew the real “sophisticated” meaning but chose to toy with the Ṣaḥābah (RA) when they made their “simple” interpretation.

Allāh save us from having either of these filthy thoughts against Rasūlullāh(pbuh). We must however ask, “The producers omitted the question of Ṣalāh which tears down their argument. Was this an oversight, coincidence or something more sinister?”

  • Exaggeration

A conspiracy of evil forces certainly exists, but exaggeration only serves the evil cause by making opponents seem false. This is in line with the very accusation of Arrivals against Zeitgeist – mention some truths mixed with falsehood, and the truth seems false.

An example of exaggeration is the clip showing an artist drawing, what appears to be sexual organs, but are mere curves in cartoons. The clip is well-known and the artist’s intentions are plain. His humour – however poor in taste it may be – is to shock the viewer to think he is drawing a private part and then continues to draw a bear etc. He is open about it, and there is no conspiracy. To claim otherwise, is either naïveté, dishonesty or something more sinister.

  • Sacrilegious depiction of sacred personalities

What kind of a Muslim depicts, not once, but repeatedly, the Mahdī as a magician from Lord of the Rings!!! In all their research did they never read Sūrah al-Baqarah, from which they would have understood that magic is Kufr?

If that is not bad enough, Arrivals has the audacity to state that Muslims are “hurt” by the Council of Nicea declaring Jesus to be God. Is it plain stupidity or hypocrisy that they portray ‘Īsā as the Kāfir king of the same movie! What are these people’s motivations?

  • Vilification of the Ṣaḥābah (r.a)

O Muslims, protect your faith against all sly attacks. Know that he who bears rancour against the Ṣaḥābah (RA) has cut himself from Rasūlullāh (pbuh) and has already lost the battle. Arrivals repeats the filthy lie of the Rawāfiḍ [Shī‘ah] that Mu‘āwiyah (RA) killed al- Ḥasan (RA). When it is convenient they quoted Tirmiẓī, but are silent of the du‘ā’ of Rasūlullāh (pbuh) for Mu‘āwiyah(RA) in the same book. Will you prefer a video clip over the Ḥadīth of Rasūlullāh (p.b.u.h)?

Other Rawāfiḍ beliefs The Arrivals cleverly draws one in, with facts and half-truths and then draw in the unwary with the Rawāfiḍ beliefs on the Mahdī. Yes, we believe that the family of Rasūlullāh (pbuh) has a special position of honour. Yes, we must confess that just like our other responsibilities, we have failed in this. Yes, the Mahdī will be of the sacred progeny. The Arrivals however makes no substantiation for interpreting this duty as recognising the fairy-tale Rawāfiḍ belief of the Twelve Imāms. Furthermore why these twelve, are there not other sects which follow Seven? To accept ‘Alī (RA) as First Imām is declaring Abū Bakr (RA) to be illegitimate and a usurper. The two beliefs cannot be reconciled. Arrivals opens the door to other filthy beliefs, such as the Alteration of the Qurān [Taḥrīf] and ‘Āishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā being an adulteress.

  • Music

Even ignoring the issue whether music is permissible or not, it is ironic that Arrivals which purports to warn against the Dajjāl uses one of his main weapons – music. Is it just ironic or something more, that there is almost non-stop music? The chosen medium uses audio and video. Other documentaries will have used the audio aspect for verbal explanations. Arrivals forces the viewer to read all explanations on the screen. Audio is almost completely devoted to music. Even when the Qurān is shown, music is being played. Even when clips with some dialogue are shown, the dialogue is blurred with music. Why?

At certain places Arrivals seems to explain the evil of some music videos. Fine, but why play it at such length after the point has already been made?

  • Immodesty

Arrivals deceives us to believing that some evil must be shown for educational purposes. It labels those who disagree as “extremist.” Why then does it go to extremes like showing the almost nude woman washing a vehicle and showing pose after pose of erotic stances? One thinks that the point has been made, and it will stop, but no such luck. Arrivals deceives one to believing one is Islāmically educating oneself. One wonders how many parents might have shown it to their children in the belief that they are being warned and educated. Had there been a dialogue (already discussed) Arrivals could have mentioned how almost everything is western society is sexualised; and anyone living on this planet would have understood. If they believed that depiction was necessary, then why such excess?

Arrivals declares women not dressed according to the Qurānic junctions as “moderate” according to the teachings of Rasūlullāh (pbuh)! Allāh knows their hearts best, but whoever falls for this video has weakened towards the Dajjāl.

  • Infiltration

Arrivals makes much about how religions have been infiltrated, but only harps on Christianity. Its quite strange that they are basically silent on infiltration in Islām. There are two forms of infiltration – individuals and groups. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī writes in Fathūl Bārī that ad-Dajjāl will undergo three phases. In the first phase he will present himself as a pious Muslim and will deceive even the genuinely pious into following him. Thus even senior figures in the community can be in the service of others. As we cannot read hearts, we cannot accuse (although when a senior figure can show non scruple at lying, one wonders…)

Parallel methods exist in infiltration on a group level. On this matter Arrivals makes a valid point that for the conspiracy to be implemented over centuries, a continuous Hidden hands is required. That Hidden Hand is none other than the Devil himself.

Note how he used a Jew, Saul, to pretend to convert to Christianity. He then turned a faith preaching about One God, into a different faith preaching Three gods and elevating Jesus to godhood, above his true station of Prophethood. It is no coincidence that The Jew, Ibn Saba’, pretended to convert to Islām. He managed to cleave a new religion out of Islām which cast doubt in the Ṣahābah and the Qurān as being authentic. He raised ‘Alī (RA) to godhood, above his true station of Companionship.

The Rawāfiḍ today (although most do not take ‘Alī (pbuh) as god) oppress the Ahlus Sunnah in Irān, but confer full respect on their brothers, the Jews. History testifies how at critical moments, they always assisted the enemies of Islām, such as the Crusaders and Mongols. Even if they are supposedly great warriors in freedom struggles today,consider: How they treat us once in power – investigate Irān.

If a Communist Atheist fights oppression, does that make him a Muslim? Similarly the kufr beliefs of Rawāfiḍ are not excused by war rhetoric. The Ḥadīth mentions Dajjāl’s supporters coming from Iṣfāhān. Guess where Isfāhān is? When ad-Dajjāl reaches al-Madīnah, an earthquake will expel all hypocrites who will go to him. Did you know that there are many Rwāfiḍ living in al-Madīnah?

Arrivals is correct that there is infiltration. They are just slyer than many expect.

Submitted via email from:Sulaiman al-Kindi


Incest is the new gay

Part I: The Beginning

It all started in 1952 with the American Psychiatric Association publishing its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and included homosexuality as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

In recognition of the scientific evidence,[1] the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.[2]

Baker vs Nelson

On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same-sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.

This came to be known simply as Baker vs Nelson. What it did was bring the same-sex issue to the limelight. The same-sex activists now had a very important tool in their hands: scientific evidence to sway court decisions. While previously homosexuality was considered as a crime, a disease and a deviancy, the trend began to change slowly in the latter half of the 19th century. Homosexuality began to be seen as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation. Then of course the incident of 1952 happened which completely put the ball in favour of the same-sex supporters. Interestingly it was the United States which was at the forefront of this.

The road to legalization of same-sex marriages

In 1975, the ice was further broken in the United States. Licenses were issued for same-sex marriages but later revoked and in one case the Bible was cited. In 1979 the Netherlands gave limited rights for same-sex couples. [3] In 1989 Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex unions, after passing a bill legalizing “registered partnerships”. Norway followed suit in 1993, and Sweden in 1995. Iceland and Greenland followed in 1996, the Netherlands in 1998 and Belgium in 2000. The major breakthrough however was on December 21 2000 when Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands signed into law the first same-sex marriage bill in the world.

This started an avalanche which resulted in some European countries and many Canadian and American states also passed the same law as well as sporadic countries elsewhere. [4]

Part II: The Avalanche 

The purpose of the above discussion was to explain the process by which homosexuality gained acceptance among the educated liberal class of the non-Muslim world of the West. The main opponents then and now are the religions prevalent in those areas whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or indeed Islam. Many of such groups are conveniently labelled ‘Conservatives’ in these parts or if they express typical religious flamboyance then they are recognized by their religion or sect.

The opponents are same today but their number has decreased. This is helped by two things: the secularization of the western lands and the wide scale reproach towards homophobia a term that has slowly become as powerful in rhetoric as anti-Semitism. This means there is a slight discomfort among western civilization towards people who are, to put it bluntly, anti-gay or more technically homophobic. The command this word has can be gauged by the fact that homophobic should literally mean someone who hates humans, but it is now meant technically as someone who hates homos which is short for homosexuals

As with imposition of secularization in any land the first to suffer is the land’s primary religion. Debates are ignited, on basis of scientific evidence primarily, that debunk the religion’s several tenets that are not in line with the liberal values accepted by the liberal world today. What is the purpose of this discussion is however to demonstrate that such liberal values are not a constant stagnant term but rather a very dynamic constantly evolving set of values that have given fruits in the area of sexual partnership. This means that now we have a complete redefinition on what can and cannot constitute a sexual partner.


Incest is the term used for sexual relationship between people who are family members or close relatives. The term is sometimes used for cousins and foster relationships as well. Incest is also the next frontier for the liberals. It is slowly gaining support and popularity especially with some highly publicized cases making rounds in the media. The current reaction of conservatives and most liberals at this is of disgust. This is evident from any thread about this topic where the majority are expressing their discomfort and horror.

Incest however is taking a very similar route to acceptance as homosexuality did. The most high-profile case in recent times is that of Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski, a German brother-sister couple. [5] Another such case covered in media extensively was that of Penny Lawrence and her father Gary Ryan (both adults). [6] What is interesting is what is common in both these cases.

The matter of choice

What is common is indeed the same scientific justification that put the ball firmly in the court of the homosexuals and their supporters. This time around the justification comes in the form of Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA). [7] This is a term coined in the 1980s to describe overwhelming feelings between blood relatives who first meet as adults. [8] It was first put in literature by a mother who met her son after a lengthy separation when he was an adult and found out she had sexual feelings for him. If you follow the two references (7 and 8) you will see several similar cases reported after the 1980s. However the gist of GSA is basically the same as the conclusion of the research on homosexuality: the persons carrying out this act do not have a choice.

To understand the implications of this we will once again refer back to how science came to the aid of homosexuality. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.“[9]

Professor Michael King states:

The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice.“[10]

The key word here is choice. Similarly for GSA we have “It also embraces the theory that if two people who are genetically related do not meet until adulthood, the normal sexual aversion that develops between siblings during childhood is somehow switched off.” [8] and “The emotions that GSA engenders are reportedly intense and all-consuming, leading those affected by it to act against their interest to pursue a relationship with their relative.“[8] as well as “GSA is rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse sexual imprinting known as the Westermarck effect, which desensitized them to later close sexual attraction” [7] (which basically says that children not reared together in early childhood become very attractive to one another later in life as they are not ‘desensitized’).

The great bigotry debate

Having established of sorts an argument similar to that of homosexuals about choice, the natural thing to wonder is why the same people who oppose incestuous relationships, support same-sex relationships? This is a relatively minor opinion but it is gaining grounds.  It is argued vociferously in this article by Stephen J. Ardent [11] who raises some critical points to demonstrate this bigotry.

Ardent argues “Incest is Against the Law. So was homosexuality at one time. So what? I guess it’s time for the law to change.” This is a valid point as we saw in Part 1 under the heading of road towards legalization of same-sex marriages.

He goes on to say “If you support gay marriage you must support any consensual sexual relationship between partners that are of the age of consent. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.”
Ardent however considers cousin-marriage to be a form of incest as well. We shall look upon this point later. He also recognizes science as a very strong tool in modern debates on morals. In his section “Incest is biologically wrong” he states: “We’ve all heard the stories about babies with two heads, six fingers, no legs, etc. But they are just that, stories. These genetic defects can happen to any two people.” He cements this point further when he argues “Finally, science and medicine have discovered that children produced by an incestuous relationship have in all practical terms no greater likelihood of genetic disorders than any non-incestuously produced child.
Well what about other incestuous relationships besides cousins? While they carry an increased risk of genetic disease, again, any two people who carry the markers for these diseases, related or not, can result in a child with a genetic disorder. We have genetic testing and such couples could choose to adopt rather than having one of their own.
It’s no different that a gay couple, who by the mechanics alone, are not capable of having children. It is no reason for them not to marry or to adopt.”

Here I believe he has hit the nail on the head. He has drawn the parallel between gay couples adopting children and incestuous people also adopting if facing the danger of deformed babies.
Having done the main work, Ardent returns to drawing rhetorical parallels between the two ‘movements’. he says: “Incest is a Mental Illness. Says who? So was homosexuality until 1990. Time for medicine to catch up with reality.” (refer to era before later half of 19th century discussed in Part 1)
He asks: “Incest is Morally Wrong. Says who? Whose morals? Any valid denial of rights to incestuous couples based on morals would be a valid and adequate reason to deny gay couples the same rights.”
To allegations of victimization: “If both parties are of the age of consent it is not victimization. Incest is not just between an adult and a child. Not all incest is child abuse because not all incest is between an adult and a child.”

Interestingly he points out ‘Accidental Incest’ whereby sperm banks means you may not know how many children you fathered and who exactly are you sleeping with.

The reader I believe, shall be able to work out where this ‘Avalanche’ goes from here. We however focus our attention to what caused this ‘acceptance’ and what we as Muslims must do about it.

The three musketeers

The basic driving force of all liberal reformations is basically to give as much freedom as possible to three things: choice of food, choice of sexual partner and methods to earn money. It is not as though they do not have restrictions but the restrictions increasingly have been made based less on religion or tradition and more on consensus and scientific evidence.  Sometimes, as we will see, the matter of choice overrides scientific evidence and in these cases the leverage of public opinion is often sought.

The fourth unofficial string to this is pleasure; or more commonly pleasure through recreational drugs. We will also later on discuss how this factor affects our discussion.

The western liberal movement constantly tries to come up with the best possible way of life whereby these three liberties are preserved. They slowly and successfully have broken the hold of religion on these matters. How this movement has achieved this is through firstly gaining control of the governments of the western countries. This led to rapid secularization of the lands. Such speed was a direct result of the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church towards its masses which meant that when the hold of the Church was finally broken on people’s personal lives (after the Protestant Reformation Movement and the advent of democratic parliamentarian rule instead of monarchies) the backlash was so severe that the liberals did not wish to hear the word of the Church in any matter. This was swiftly adopted in Judaism and attempts are currently being made on Islam for over a century. For details kindly see our article Answering Secularism I.

Now with their hold on government the society can be easily molded into whatever shape they want. This may or may not require scientific evidence because it is legislated using the majority vote. It is this customized formation of society that can have a sway on thought process. This is what we discuss next.

Scientific analysis and empirical evidence – good enough?

But first we must put Science in its correct perspective. Science has namely two aspects: meta and empirical. All of it however requires a philosophical intellectual reasoning to make sense of what we ‘see’. For example the Universe was created when a small chemical agent came into being and then evolved to create the whole universe. This is empirically proven. But the analysis of this differ. Muslims, and all other major religions, believe Allah (or God) created this particle and guided it through a process by which the Universe was created. Atheists believe this particle came by chance and evolved into this Universe by chance. Therefore we have two obviously differing analysis.

The separation of metaphysics from physics has resulted in an increasing reliance on empirical evidence. This is wrong as not everything can be explained by tabulated outcomes. Not everything can be reproduced so that a definite pattern is observed. Not every cause can be studied by deliberately trying to reproduce the results of an experiment faithfully. Consider something called ‘thought’. Can scientists reconstruct the mechanism by which a particular thought came to a person’s mind? Can they even detect a thought and what it says without interference of the host? Can they determine why a thought comes at a particular time? The answer is a solid no. Therefore we conclude that empirical evidence is not the final say on anything because it does not answer the fundamental question of Why. We know the planets follow a perfect orbit round the Sun, but why do they do so? Why the altering of the day and night in a specific order throughout the year? What purpose does it serve? The answer is not with scientists.

So the purpose of the above discussion was to basically demonstrate that Science does not hold the answer to what is right and what is wrong. What is more is that the separation of meta from empirical data has reduced further the capability of Science to answer the question of Why and Why not. The ever-evolving precision of instruments means that constantly we will be bombarded with new data that will override the previous one. For example a while back a study showed that previously what was thought to be useless area in DNA (which evolutionists explained as occurring because the DNA base evolved from a primitive thing to its present state because of a chain of coincidences therefore some parts were not ‘mapped’ as a result) was actually ‘useful’ area in terms of mapping. So if we go by science and take right and wrong from it then entire generations will be in the wrong throughout their lives and suddenly some new scientific discovery might tell you that the morals you lived your own life by – were wrong.

I am by no means implying that Science is useless or redundant. I am merely pointing towards the incorrect importance given to scientific analysis which is particularly borne out of the reformation backlash of the liberals against the Roman catholic Church ; it has now translated into a global imposed supremacy of Science over religious discourse. As Professor King said above: “Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice.” [10]

But there are gaping holes in this scientific analysis. The reader may have noticed that almost all the scientific responses to homosexuality asserted that the individual could somehow fit into the society and live a ‘normal’ healthy life.

Three questions: who defines normal, how do you conclude it is healthy and what is to say some decades from now you will not ‘discover’ it is in fact unhealthy?

The last two questions are answered in the above paragraphs. The first question takes us back to the discussion of reformation of society. The scientists actually consider ‘normal’ what is normal behavior accepted by the masses and approved by the government. There is nothing objective about it. The opinion of the masses is then again not indicative of correctness as it is result of the education system, society traditions and in present age: media propaganda. How do you think the masses voted for same-sex marriage legalization in 90s and 2000s but not before that?

Therefore the Scientists vision is subjective and limited to the society they see around them. What they call normal is normal only for that society but it does not mean that it is right. The issue left is therefore of their assertion that there is no choice for homosexuals.

Islam and Incest

There is no disagreement among Muslim scholars that Incest is haram (prohibited). There is no disagreement that the ruling for homosexuality is the same. For a believer that much is enough.

One may ask: what does Islam say about genetic pre-disposition? The answer is that even if we assume the scientists are correct in their assertion that there is no choice the fact of the matter is that there is a choice because human beings are born with free will. Giving in to our desires is not the same thing as being forced against your will. So the scientists’ assertion of ‘no choice’ means simply that the homosexual person was ‘born gay’.

But all of us are born with something not necessarily a disease. We are all born with an equal disposition towards good and bad. Which good or bad is what separates us from one another. For example I may be born with a disposition towards being short-tempered, while someone may be born with a disposition towards laziness. Our purpose in life is to over come these dispositions so that we mold it according to what our Creator Allah desires. No pre-disposition is impossible to overcome. Otherwise there would be no reward or punishment on Day of Judgement. For atheists, such a day does not exist but then again their theory is flawed since mathematically no equation can be unbalanced in nature, the proof of which is the perfect way our Universe is running. We know that justice isn’t served in this world and sometimes bad people seem to ‘get away’ with their evil. But mathematically that is not possible as the equation is unbalanced. One must get the reward of punishment for what they did in their lives. This necessitates  that there be a Day of Reckoning, which further necessitates that all humans should have the ability to overcome their bad pre-dispositions to submit to the Will of Allah. It is not ironic that Islam’s literal meaning is submission to Allah.

Therefore the scientists’ argument that there is no choice is void. Their argument that such behavior is ‘normal’ has been shown to be void as well. Human beings are born with good and bad qualities and inclinations. In additions the society and education imposed on them further shapes their orientations and choices. It is a matter of overcoming this to live according to what is right.

Animals as our role models?

It is sometimes suggested that homosexuality is not abnormal because many animals do it as well. However this is an incorrect analogy because humans are intellectually superior to animals. You don’t need empirical evidence to prove that. Therefore we can not take animals as a proof of what is normal. You have an insect whose female eats the male after copulation. Should that also serve as a guide to human sexual relations?

Part III: The Future

In our previous articles we discussed how Animal Brothels were legalized in Denmark. This also stems from the same notions of majority is correct and such people function ‘normally’ in ‘normal’ societies. In addition it is suggested that the animal is not harmed and probably likes it.

The future as I see it is that the West will legalize incest in the same way as homosexuality. Meanwhile their society will continue to evolve into something even more liberal in terms of their three fundamental needs. Their fourth unofficial such need of recreational drugs/wine/anything to get their mind off life, also made headline recently with US states of Washington and Colorado having voted to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for recreational purposes, in defiance of federal law. [12] The same agents are at work here: choice, majority opinion, adaptation in society.

I do not see forms of incest such as parent and child legalized, nor do I see rape legalized however their society would be such that those who do not wish to copulate with their parent will not say anything to those who wish to do. It is their choice and we throw in the rhetoric about freedom of expression and the argument , for liberals at least, is complete.

This will further increase immorality in their society (though they won’t accept this terminology and would like to call it advancement or modernity) so that new perversions will crop up and in ways similar to homosexuality and incest these societies would ‘adapt’ to ‘fit’ them in. With the government in hands of the liberals it won’t be a hard task. The ‘Accidental Incest’ also stems out of their society spiraling out of control whereby measures have to be taken to accommodate newer perversions resulting in even more perversions.

Liberalism and nihilistic atheism have already destroyed Western marriage institutions. Homosexuality and Incest will completely destroy it. After all when you are not going to be given life after your death to answer for your deeds then better live life for sex, money, food and drugs/wine and do whatever you want as long as you are fine with it and you don’t get caught by police. It is a simple enough formula. Just kill your conscience. (Another food for thought for scientists: why do we have a conscience?)

An acquaintance of mine suggested that western society will come to accept ritualized cannibalism one day. Applying the now familiar agents of choice, majority vote and fitting in we can safely predict the path of such legalization. There will be an Armin Meiwes and Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes who will be consenting adults willing to eat flesh of one another in a controlled and safe environment using drugs to ease the pain and enjoy the sexual experience.

This perversion has no bounds. If only the liberals would come to realize that just because you are attracted to something/someone does not mean you go and have intercourse with it. This perversion stands out in sharp contrast, ironically, to what America’s great leader Abraham Lincoln believed in. Professor Gramm wrote: “To him, the universe if not random, is not morally neutral, is not masterless; and humankind has to answer for its actions in a cosmos that is not only physical but moral. The difference between good and evil can sometimes be known. There are such things as duty and responsibility toward others. We are not the ultimate judges. And, as in the Old Testament, nations are held accountable as if they were individuals.” [13]. Gramm argues that much of Lincoln’s thought would be alien to today’s America because its law and culture are “becoming abjectly secular,” and because “we now have a society increasingly uncivilized and more pervasively without conscience. . . .” [14]

As usual in Muslim lands plagued with secularism, encouraged by the West taking revenge on Islam for the sins of Roman Catholic Church, the liberals are quick to catch on the Western ‘trends’. As a result the media propaganda machine which sways the public opinion in a short span of time is used to openly promote homosexuality. However Muslim bloggers have risen to the occasion trying their best to refute such perversion [15]

It is therefore necessary for Muslims to see that with legalized homosexuality knocking on their doors the gates will soon be open for incest, bestiality and cannibalism. They must think of themselves and their future generations and practice and spread the word of Islam to the best of their capabilities.


[2] (page 30)
[13] Kent Gramm, Gettysburg. A Meditation on War and Values, p. 22
[14] Ibid., pp. 184 and 76.

Anti-Semitism is not the answer


Anti-Semitism is not the answer

I have recently seen hatred coming from Muslims towards Jews because of the anti-Islam film made by a Jew (apparently) and some Muslims were making fun of the Holocaust to mock the Jewish community which was largely in support of the film.

I advice against this as it is cruel and unbecoming of Muslims.

Those Jews in WWII were killed unjustly.
Let us not stoop to the level of the Jews.

Instead lets have an educated argument against them. Using something like this:

Like and share please!

Animal brothels legal in Denmark

Taken from here.

Start of article

Laws in both Denmark and Norway are fairly open when it comes to a person’s legal right to engage in sexual activity with an animal. The law states that doing so is perfectly legal, so long as the animal involved does not suffer. According to the Danish newspaper 24timer, this interesting gap in the law has led to a flourishing business in which people pay in order to have sex with animals.

On the internet, several Danish animal owners openly advertise their services. The newspaper contacted several such individuals and was told that many of the animals have been engaged in this kind of activity for several years and that the animals crave the sexual stimulation. The newspaper found that the cost charged by the animal owners varied from DKK 500 to 1,000 (USD$85 to $170).

Since Danish laws are so similar to Norwegian laws, the animal bordello phenomenon has led many to question if such a practice could be legal in Norway as well.

Torunn Knaevelsrud is the section chief for animal welfare for the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. “It is difficult to say yes or no,” he replied to a question about the legality of animal bordellos in Norway.

“It could be that the animals don’t really care,” Knaevelsrud said. “But I think it is in the nature of the case that animals will often be victims of injury, stress or suffering in connection with sexual acts with humans. Either that they are held fast, or frightened, or suffer pain or physical injury,” Knaevelsrud said.

Norway is currently reviewing its Animal Protection Act and several groups, including the Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance, have proposed making amendments which forbid sexual intercourse with animals.

“The acts provoke moral disgust. The question is whether immorality should be made illegal. The FSA group discussing the new animal protection act has been in disagreement about this,” Knaevelsrud said.

One of the owners of an animal bordello in Denmark said that many of his clients come from abroad and travel some distance for his services. “But the clients tell us that it is much simpler to buy animal sex in Denmark than in their own country,” the owner said, explaining that many of his clients come from Norway, Sweden, Holland and Germany.

End of article

When man gets the right to legislate this is what happens. If 60% of people in the parliament feel this is ‘okay’ does it automatically become ‘okay’ and becomes allowed?Read this again: in Denmark sex with an animal is legal as long as animal does not suffer. Perhaps they should teach the animal how to use twitter so we can all know what it feels.

This is a great victory for democracy…and for Science.
Soon we will have a Scientific Research that declares such behavior to be appropriate as ‘such individuals perform normally in our society’, and my favorite ‘such people do not have a choice’.

The liberals and atheists will quote these lines to every practicing Muslim, every Bible-holding Christian and Torah-holding Jew and pretty much everyone who feels morally repulsed by such deviancy.

Hence it is also a victory for liberalism. What started from Lawrence vs Texas will soon lead to this and more. Read this article again in a few decades and tell me if I was wrong.