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.
For the past forty-three years, since the conclusion of the Six-Day-War in 1967, the American administration has recruited its best political minds and muscles for the task of bringing about a lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis. There have been some successes; Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, and although peace between Israel and its two key neighbors has been holding for more than a decade, it has been a cold peace. The two “friendly” Arab neighbors continued their support of broad anti-Semitism campaigns through their government-controlled media and via their government-controlled education system; they participated actively in anti-Israel political maneuvering in international forums, including the UN, and limited their commercial ties with the Jewish state to a minimum.
It is important to note that both Egypt and Jordan have no territorial disputes with Israel. Egypt traded territory (the Sinai Peninsula) and plenty of American cash for peace; Jordan abandoned its claim to Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. “the West Bank”) in favor of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and a future Palestinian state. At the same time, Lebanon, under Hezbollah’s manipulation, has been acting on behalf of Iran while continuing its active hostilities toward its Southern neighbor, Israel; Syria continues to pose a potential threat with persistent talk about a looming war, and the Palestinian territories—the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—are boiling with hate while talking about the “Peace Process.”
When scratching the shiny surface and unearthing the true meaning behind the Palestinians’ code words, (which worm their way into the hearts and minds of the world’s peace lovers), one may decipher the true objective behind all Palestinian’s peace declarations. The key word Palestinians bring into play when referring to Israel is “the Occupation.” To the western naïve ear, the ironic title implies—the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, a.k.a. the so-called Palestinian territories. However, there are no Israelis in Gaza; Gaza is not occupied, and 90% of the West Bank is controlled and administered by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its President Mahmud Abbas. What does Israel occupy?
When Palestinian refer to “the Occupation” they mean—Israel proper. In their mind, Israel proper, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba, etc., constitute occupied Islamic Land. They have not reconciled to the fact that Israel exists as a Jewish state. This reality has been evidenced in Abbas’s recent, public refusal to admit to it—“Yes, Israel exists,” he confirmed. “It’s a fact,” he approved. But he resisted the critical part—“as a Jewish state.” His words echoed a recent Palestinian TV Game show quiz, in which Haifa was defined as a Palestinian coastal city, while as recently as a few weeks ago, PA TV called for Israelis to leave Israel and "return" to Germany and Poland (Helen Thomas only reiterated it). What’s more, a recent official PA TV has been teaching children to envision a world, in which Israel does not exist and all of Israel is part of the "State of Palestine," poisoning their minds to make certain that their Jew-hatred agenda subsisted for the next one hundred years and beyond. The following lesson was on a very recent educational PA TV children's program. The map used in the studio was named "Palestine" and included all of Israel.
Host: "Show me where you've been on the map of Palestine."
Girl: "We went to the Sea of Galilee [northern Israel] and to the Dead Sea."
Boy points on map: "Jaffa, Haifa." [Israeli cities]... and Jenin and Nablus [West Bank]."
Host: "So you've visited many different places in Palestine, and that's very good. It's very good that we're always visiting new places in our state, Palestine.
There are thousands of other similar examples. Official Palestinian maps show Israel and the Palestinian territories (of the West Bank and Gaza) as a single country named Palestine. Palestinian schoolbooks teach hate while rewriting history. Palestinian newspapers, Palestinian TV programs, especially those intended for children— every single one of them emphasizes Jew-hatred by way of Nazi style anti-Semitic propaganda. They promote Shahada (death for Allah), invent conspiracy libels, demonize Jews, glorify terrorists and terror—all premeditated to deny Israel’s existence or its right to exist.
In short, Palestinians contention to a two-state solution is dishonest at best. It sounds righteous to all since the West interprets that declaration as a compromise, but the Palestinian audience understands the veritable intent—the Arab interpretation of the two-state solution does not recognize the Jewish state as one of a two-part upshot. The Arab leaders are talking about two Palestinian states living side-by side before they will be unified to become one Palestine in a later phase once the Jews are eliminated.
It was Habib Bourguiba, president of Tunisia in the late 1950’s, who first came up with a “revolutionary” thinking. He suggested that Arabs should resort to a peace offensive (or a peace process) as a smoke screen in pursuit of what has been called the Salami Principle—putting international pressure on Israel to weaken itself through a series of withdrawals to earlier borders. “It would be a first step,” he asserted, “preceding the final assault on what’s left of the Jewish state whose indefensible borders would make it an easy prey.” The immediate reaction by the rest of the Arabs was rejection. Abd el Nasser, Egypt’s president and leader of the Arab world, was quick to remove any doubt or misunderstanding about the Arabs’ true intentions. “The liquidation of Israel,” he announced on March 8, 1965, “will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter a Palestine not covered with sand, but soaked in blood.”
Since that time, Palestinians have recognized Bourguiba’s wisdom. In his quest for “peace”, Khaled Meshaal, the current Palestinian Hamas leader, has said in his coded language, “We want to have peace in the region, but peace will not be achieved before the removal of the occupation (emphasis added).” He then added, “We have agreed that peace can be achieved with the removal of the occupation and the end of aggression.” One needs to understand that the term “the occupation” is synonymous to “Israel,” and the term “aggression” is a code word for “Israel’s existence.” In other words, Meshaal‘s peace initiative has called for peace with Israel as long as Israel ceased to exist.
Arabs intentions became transparent after the Kamp David conference in the final days of the Clinton Administration. Ehud Barak, then Israel’s Prime Minister, offered Arafat 95% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, 100% of the Gaza strip plus a corridor connecting the two detached territories, in return for the promise of peace. It was the most any Israeli leader would ever put forward as a peace concession to any future Palestinian leader. But the offer was rejected, and the Palestinians declared war (Intifada) on Israel in its aftermath. Palestinians reinforced Israel’s suspicion and belief that Arabs are not serious about peace, even though Palestinian leaders have been promoting their desire for peace whenever interviewed by a western reporter. Following Israel‘s withdrawal from Gaza in 2007 and emptying Gaza from all and every Israeli, Palestinians began shooting thousands of deadly rockets at “the occupation”—towns and villages of Israeli civilians who had never occupied anything Palestinian—from the same real estate vacated by the Jewish settlers as a good will gesture, and given back to the Palestinians.
Responses following Israeli withdrawals from territories occupied during defensive wars had always been met by Arab deadly aggression in return. It was true in the West Bank following the Oslo accord when suicide bombing inside Israeli cities became a daily affair; it was true following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon when Hezbollah took over the territory and began shooting rockets at Israeli towns, and it was true all over again following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
In the present environment, where Muslim religious clerics call for Jihad against Jews, it has become apparent that Palestinian talk of peace is designed to mask their ever so violent intentions. Only lately, they have repeated their genocidal threat claiming that the subjugation of the Christian world will begin in Rome and that “No Jew will be left on the face of this earth”.
Any intelligent person would recognize that this kind of talk is not conducive to peace. Still, world leaders, including our own, president Obama, refuse to listen, to interpret, to believe these death threats. As long as words like “peace process,” “occupation,” “aggression” supplement any Muslim’s hate speech, our leaders find comfort in the Webster Dictionary interpretation of these words rather than their genuine intent.
The only conclusion that a reasonable person can infer from a logical analysis based on actual precedents is that further Israeli concessions toward peace with the Palestinians would only bring about more violence in return. Unfortunately, Palestinians’ talk about a peace process is unmistakably consistent with their view of the Salami principle, while their Islamic teaching forbids treatment of Jews as worthy human beings.
A two-state solution is a mirage, an illusion borne by western leaders and the world’s media. It is a nightmare for sober Israelis who understand the consequences of the so-called peace; yet, it is a dream of Paradise, a lifetime ambition for all Islamic martyrs and those who send them on their Jihadi mission.
Dr. Avi Perry
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
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. 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. must protect itself from the Terrorists who run Gaza with the support of
3. Israel moves daily humanitarian aid to Gaza through several land-bound . 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 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.