Islamic leaders, seeking to motivate would be suicide bombers, inducing them to commit murder in the name of Allah, have been quoting Islamic sources, which promise 72 Virgins in Paradise to those who kill and are killed in Jihad for Allah.

Many Muslims, especially those exposed to Western culture, are aware of the jokes and the ridicule that the 72 Virgins legend has brought upon them and upon their brother believers. Consequently, they blame the Jews for spreading the myth in an attempt to downgrade the image of the Islamic "freedom fighters".

Despite the disclaimer by some Muslims, the truth is very clear. The 72 Virgins notion has its origins in the Qur'an. Although the holy book does not specify the number as 72, it does say that those who fight in the way of Allah and are killed will be given a great reward. It goes on to stipulate that Muslims will be awarded with women in Islamic heaven. It even describes their physical attributes—large eyes (Q 56:22) and big, firm, round "swelling breasts" that are not inclined to sagging (Q 78:33). The Qur'an refers to these virgins as houri, companions of equal age, but the highly-flavored emphasis of their bodily characteristics, including their virginity, gave rise to many hadiths and other Islamic writings.

Hadith 2687 is where the number 72 is mentioned. "The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and 72 houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a."

Qur'anic commentator Al-Suyuti (died 1505) and Orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) graphically elaborated sensual pleasures attributed to Muslims in paradise". Al-Suyuti wrote, "Each time we sleep with a Houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [i.e. Muslim] will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas."

On the whole, the Qur'an and the hadiths are filled with sexual fantasies that Muslim men are awarded when they reach Islamic heaven. Anas bin Malik, an Islamic scholar, claimed that "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number… The Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." Muhammad (hadith 24) apparently claimed that devout Muslims would be given the sexual strength of 100 persons upon their arrival in Heaven. (This is apparently more than what was attributed to the prophet himself).

The sexual obsession by Muslim men as conveyed by Islamic writings, takes its cue from the founder of the religion.  The description depicts him as a sexual predator. Aisha, Muhammad's wife since she was a nine-year-old girl, described her sexual experiences with the prophet. When she was six years old, he could not have intercourse with her due to her young age. As a consolation prize, he placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it softly. Aisha explained that unlike other believers, the prophet had control over his penis."

Being consistent with its sexual obsession and predatory practices, the Qur'an permits pedophilia (sura 65:4). It also discusses rape in detail. It lets you know that men can rape female slaves and captives (Q 23:6), even in front of their husbands (Q 4:24). Other writings advise that when having sex with captives, it's better if you don't pull out at the end (Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718).

It's no wonder that 72 Virgins in Paradise are a fundamental piece of Islamic culture. Sex, sex abuse, pedophilia, and enslavement of women take central stage within that religion. Encouraging martyrdom by pointing to sexual rewards in heaven is a natural corollary of that tradition. Although the Qur'an may not be as specific, it nevertheless, offers many clues, which subsequent inscriptions reinforced, interpreted, and broadened.

I have written this article in response to many questions I had been asked by book club members who'd read my book 72 Virgins. In that book, I did not discuss the roots of that evil thinking. Instead, I told a story, a thriller about a group of Jihadi terrorists and their quest for martyrdom. The story builds on the Jihadists' motivation for targeting so many innocents and exploiting the victims' massacre as a stepping-stone to their dream of eternal paradise next to Allah's throne. The real question I've tried to answer is not whether Jihadists' plots will ever cease to emerge. There's no chance of that. The question the book seeks to answer is—will the next one be stopped before it's too late?

General McChrysral (was) resigned today.  It was a smart move—not by the president, but rather by the general. McChrystal is a brilliant real life strategist. He must have realized that the war in Afghanistan was going badly. The war was not winnable under the present constraints, requiring him to play by rules he considered wrong, poorly devised, politically motivated by men who did not understand what it took to win it. What's more, the strategy he advocated—a government in a box—was not working due to the inability of the corrupt, apathetic Afghan government to put it into a sustainable action. McChrystal's strategy has also brought about a considerable measure of criticism due to its semi-covert financial support, bribes, and disregard for the drug trafficking business conducted by corrupt officials and warlords. It was, still is, the only way he could win their backing and cooperation, protect his troops, minimize casualties.

The general did not want to go down in history as the one who could not bring home the trophy. He was not about to be nicknamed - Loser. He believed that if it had been up to him, he would have run a different war. He would have gathered more resources, troops, money, and local authority. He would not have been subject to a withdrawal date before watching a "Mission Accomplished" banner hung over the White House. He would have returned home a hero to a hero welcome; he would have been an Eisenhower.

General McChrystal made a choice. He was not drunk when he gave an interview to Rolling Stone Magazine. Not only was he sober; he was calculated and alert. He wanted out of his mission, and he wanted the reason to be out as well. He knew that the president would fire him in consequence of his interview, and he was looking forward to the boot.

His words would prove right, he supposed. The war would be another Vietnam, but he would not be blamed. On the contrary, he would be praised for his foresight; he would be considered a leader, a visionary, maybe a future president. Time would prove him right, he deemed. He would sacrifice his present job as part of this gambit. It would pay off handsomely in days to come.

Even though the Afghan war would end up badly, he knew it would no longer be his fault; he would not be responsible for the looming disaster; he would still be a winner.

Left-leaning ideology is an ideology obsessed with rooting for the underdog, the poor, the deprived, the loser. As a rule, the flag bearers of this standpoint are quite aggressive—even to the point of turning violent—in their quest for saving the world from its villains. They represent David against Goliath, Don Quixote against the windmills, “Good” against “Evil”—or so they believe.  
There is a problem, though, with the left-leaning approach. Equating “Good” with the underdogs and the losers, “Evil” with the successful and the winners, is not always proper. Losers, in most cases, have brought the misery upon themselves through their own actions, and the successful, more often than not, have worked hard and legitimately before attaining their status. Of course, there are cases to the contrary, nevertheless, profiling by picking “good” and “evil” based on “poor” and “successful” respectively, is ironic, wrong and improper.
What’s more, as soon as the left-leaning ideologue realizes his dream—David has defeated Goliath and is no longer the underdog—the zealous advocate for human justice no longer supports his former hero. David has now become Goliath—a subject of abhorrence, a target for hate speech and action. Angel Gabriel has become the devil, only because he is no longer the underdog.
It is true that the state of Israel used to be a favorite among many left leaning personalities up until she won the six-day-war in 1967. That war changed the geography of the Middle East. Israel’s, unexpected, but magnificent triumph, over several, better-equipped Arab enemies, transformed her image from the underdog to the occupier. All of a sudden, the nation of Palestine, which had not existed before 1967, the smallest community of the huge Arab nation, became its own nation. A splinter set of Goliath’s teeth, a former aggressor turned loser became a favorite of the left, while the winner, the former underdog, the David, became the villain—It had won and therefore it was no longer the smaller fry.   
The same is true with Islam in Europe and the US. The “religion of hate and hubris” is referred to as the “religion of peace” by those leftists who view it as the little, innocent deer who try to survive in a jungle ruled by the Judeo-Christian carnivores (It’s actually just Christian, but the title of Judeo-Christian makes it for a more appetizing target of hate). When politically incorrect statements spill the beans, tell the true objective of where Islam is headed—world domination, Sharia Law, Dhimmi status imposition on all infidels, religious intolerance, subjugation of women, to name a few great qualities—the left ideologues cry foul. “You can’t insult Islam,” they say, “even when you tell the truth.” Islam is the underdog now.
Islam treats the left as its useful idiots; the left is being manipulated as an instrument for achieving Islam’s final objective.
The left leaning ideology is the Achilles heel of the Western democracies. The rest of us must wake up and understand that this virus can become deadly, just as it did in Hitler’s Germany and in Lenin’s Russia. We must develop early resistance, a vaccine, not a politically correct one. We must undermine the leftists’ credibility by proving that the underdog may deserve its feat; the underdog may not always have the truth on his side; the underdog may be evil just like Islam, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, like al Qaeda, just like the rest of the world’s innocent death seeking martyrs.   

Active self-defense is a preemptive act designed to thwart impending aggression by enemy forces. Examples of aggressive self-defense are numerous, but the ones dear to my heart have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The first one that comes to mind is the preemptive Israeli strike on the Egyptian and Syrian airfields at the dawn of the six-day-war in 1967. On the eve of that historic week, Egypt and Syria massed their heavily armed troops along their Israeli borders, declared their objective of annihilating the Jewish state, closed the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, while announcing hourly threats of violence and genocide. The preemptive strike by Israel changed the map, and turned the death threat into secured living. On the eve of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, hours before the Egyptian and Syrian invasion (of the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively), Israel learned of that plan. Golda Meir, (the Israeli prime minister at the time), made the fatal decision of not to preempt that attack, and not to call its reserve units in time, for fear that that action would be interpreted by the international community as an Israeli aggression. It was a huge mistake; it cost many Israeli lives. When the war was over, Golda was forced to resign.

Useful idiots, single move chess players, and hypocritical politicians interpret active self-defense, as an act of aggression. A country like Israel, always under the threat of annihilation, while being isolated by a UN majority of Islamic states, left-leaning thinking, and other anti-Semitic regimes, is naturally sensitive to public opinion. It tries to avoid a perception of an aggressor; it thinks twice and even more than twice, before resorting to a policy of active self-defense. And when active self-defense is exercised, it is a last resort.

This was the case of the “Humanitarian” flotilla. Israel has no choice but to impose a blockade on the Gaza strip. Hamas, the rulers of the strip, declared war on Israel. They have been practicing their form of Jihad against the Jewish population. Hamas showered Israeli towns with thousands of missiles prior to Israel’s active self-defense act of Operation Cast-Lead in 2009. Although that operation contributed to a relative calm in its aftermath, the International community condemned Israel for exercising its right to defend itself.

Many international leaders support Israel’s right to defend itself. They say so on TV. But when Israel exericuses that right, the same leaders cry—“Aggression!” They do so because it seems politically convenient. Speaking from both sides of their mouth on an emotional issue helps with popular support. This is especially true since the majority of the world’s population and its leaders hate the Jewish people, hate the Jewish state, must maintain economic growth that require steady, uninterrupted flow of oil, believe in the rights of the Palestinians to the land (this is another myth that I will write about), etc.

International rules of law must be modified and clarified to recognize that active self-defense is self-defense. It is an act designed to thwart aggression rather than to exercise it. The blockade on the Gaza strip is precisely that kind of an act.

It is self-defense.

Dr. A. Perry

www.aviperry.org

The Turks complain about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. It is important to note that they have opened a door to their own dirty laundry. Everyone whose heart strives for human justice must ask them the following questions:
1. What happened in Armenia? Why are you denying the genocide (1.5 Million people) you committed? Is it only because al Jazeera was not there to record it?
2. How about independence for Kurdistan? Independence for Armenia? Aren’t you for a “Two-state" solution? The Kurds are still yearning for a state of their own, but their land is occupied by Turkey.
3. What happened to the Greek citizens of Northern Cyprus that you turned into refugees, cleansed the area by driving them out of their homes? Isn’t it time to let them back into their homeland, compensate them for the suffering you caused?

OK, so you have established yourself as the dean of the anti-Semites, but before you speak out, make sure that there is no microphone around, because your facts are distorted by your blind Jew-hatred. Before spitting hate on video, you ought to know the facts. Here is a summary.

When you tell Jews to go back to their “home”, then you clarify “home” as Germany, Poland, Holland, you must be ignorant about the Holocaust. But then, you may have joined Ahmadinejad in denying it, like the rest of the world’s idiots, who do exactly what President Eisenhower had been worried about, when insisting on filming evidence of the Holocaust, especially for those idiots who would want to deny it.

For your information, more Jews were born in Israel than those who came back after 2000 years. Where should all the Sabras (native Israelis) go if that’s not their home? There is another fact you have missed. More Jews escaped (not left) Arab countries and Iran then those who came from Europe. I bet this little fact had never crossed your mind.

The Jews were the real owners of the land of Israel. They resided in that land since 3000 years ago and until the Roman Empire wiped the land and its people of the map in the first and second centuries, then changed its name to Palestine. The land was empty and deserted, then came the next occupiers—the Muslims, then the crusaders, then the Muslims again, but most of the land was empty except for a few JEWS (yes. This is no typo), a few Muslims, and a few Christians. When Jews started returning to their homeland in the 19th century, and turn the desert and the mosquito-infested swamps into a livable place, the Muslims began moving in as well, due to the prospects of a higher standard of living that the Jews brought about. Palestine was never a Muslim state. It’s sole true owner-inhabitants were the Jews. After the Jews were driven out, it became an occupied territory—occupied by the Roman/Byzantine Empires, the Ottoman Turks, then the British, and then Israel. It is and it has always been the land where the Jewish nation originated and lived.

If you want to children of Israel who were born there to go back to their grandparents’ graveyards, why don’t you go to your ancestors’ land and do what you preach? And talking about “occupation”—Your ancestors are the true occupiers of America. They massacred the original inhabitants—the American Indians— then drove them out of the land.  I bet you have never known that fact either. And what about Texas? Isn’t that land an “Occupied” Land? Didn’t we take it away from the Mexicans?

Dear Helen, admit it. You are just a lucky, ignorant bitch. You have failed the simple test of history. You should not be a reporter. You diminish the prestige of what this title represents.

Go Fx#% yourself.

Many self-appointed “experts” voice wrong information concerning the Israeli seizure of the “hate armada” a.k.a. the Gaza-bound flotilla who claimed to bring humanitarian aid to the poor Gazans.

These experts are ignorant about international law. Israel did not violate it. JFK did the same when blockading Cuba during the missile crisis. I attach a piece of international law for all. Please educate yourself before speaking out.
1.      "Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (emphasis added)… A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. (emphasis added)”

2.      Israel must protect itself from the Terrorists who run Gaza with the support of Iran and al Qaeda. Israel inspects all cargo that is delivered to Gaza via its land-crossing so as to ensure that weapons designed to terrorize its civilian population do not get through. This is the reason for the blockade, just like JFK"s reason for blockading Cuba.

3.      Israel moves daily humanitarian aid to Gaza through several land-bound border crossings. Contrary to Arab propaganda, there is no shortage of food and medical equipment or supplies in Gaza. Israel offered the same deal to the flotilla’s leaders who refused it. Also, it should be noted—every day many sick Palestinians from Gaza cross into Israel in quest of medical care in Israeli hospitals. I bet you did not know about this little fact.

4.       According to Israel National News, an IDF source reports that, "the poor condition of most of the "humanitarian" aid (taken from the ship and inspected by the IDF)  was unusable...Many of the medicines are expired."  Clearly, delivering aid is not what this was all about.

5.      The IDF spokesman has put out information regarding the weapons that were found on the ship: "Once the activists left the ship, security forces began a thorough search and found a supply of weapons, including knives, Molotov cocktails, detonators, wood and metal clubs, slingshots and rocks, large hammers and sharp metal objects. In addition, gas masks were found, pointing to the prior intention of the ship’s passengers to use violence against IDF soldiers who would then be forced to use riot dispersal methods."

6.      Israeli soldiers were caught by surprise—an ambush they did not anticipate. They did not intend to use violence. They did so in self-defense after being attacked by a lynching mob.