The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline – Obama’s War for Oil

September 10, 2013
(source Sharia Unveiled by  | Men’s News Daily) Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assadrefused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuiresummarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?


Islamization of Jerusalem

September 22, 2010

President Netanyahu 5/13/10: none of the 16 various Arabic names for Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran. But in an expanded interpretation of the Koran from the 12th century, one passage is said to refer to Jerusalem,’via and

Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Muhammad’s death. In 682 CE, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. ‘Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, then needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was at that time under his control. To justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (17,1 = sura 17, verse 1) which states (trans. by Majid Fakhri):
“Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs, He is indeed the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”

The meaning ascribed to this verse (see the commentary in al-Jallalayn) is that “the furthest mosque” (al-masgid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem, and that Muhammad was conveyed there one night (although by camel the journey took three days), on the back of al-Buraq, a magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and hoofs reaching to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel. On his way, he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of the Seven Heavens: Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Idris (=Seth?), Aaron, Moses and Abraham — who all accompanied him on his way to Allah and accepted him as their master.

Jerusalem, too, underwent Islamization: At first Muhammad tried to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community. By way of persuasion, he established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, in keeping with Jewish practice; but after he failed in this effort, he turned against the Jews, killed many of them, and directed the kiblah southward, towards Mecca. 

Muhammad’s abandonment of Jerusalem can explain why this city is not mentioned even once in the Koran. When Palestine was occupied by the Muslims, its capital was Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, signifying that to them Jerusalem meant nothing.

 Islam tries in this way to gain legitimacy over other, older religions: It creates a scene in which the former prophets agree to Muhammad’s mastery, and make him Khatam al-Anbiya’ (“the Seal of the Prophets”).

According to this legend, Islam came to the world to replace Judaism and Christianity, not to live side by side with them.

Ironically, this miraculous account contradicts a number of the tenets of Islam: How can a living man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox Muslim thinkers to conclude that the nocturnal journey was a dream of Muhammad’s. The journey and the ascent serve Islam to “go one better” than the Bible: Moses “only” went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas Muhammad went all the way up to Allah from Jerusalem itself.

There are difficulties, however, with the belief that the al-Aqsa mosque described in Islamic tradition is located in Jerusalem:

For one, the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believe this story. Only Abu Bakr (later the first Caliph), believed him and was therefore called al-Siddiq (“the Believer”).

A second difficulty is that Islamic tradition tells us that the al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in “Kitab al-Maghazi” (Oxford University Press, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9), a book by the Muslim historian and geographer al-Waqidi.

According to al-Waqidi, there were two “masjeds” (places of prayer) in al-Gi’irranah, a village between Mecca and Ta’if, one was “the closer mosque” (al-masjid al-adna) and the other was “the farther mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa), where Muhammad would pray when he went out of town. This description by al-Waqidi, however, supported by a chain of authorities (isnad), was not “convenient” for the Islamic propaganda of the 7th century.

To establish a basis for the “holiness” of Jerusalem in Islam, the Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty invented “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem (known as “fadha’il bayt al-Maqdis”), and which would justify a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the faithful Muslims. Thus was “the farther mosque,” al-Masjid al-Aqsa, “transported” to Jerusalem.

Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and these “traditions” to recruit and inflame the Muslim warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th century.

Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity, which consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. As Jews and Christians had changed and distorted (“ghyyarou wa-baddalou”) the Word of God, each in their turn, Islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, destined to replace the other two.

via Haddith:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

don’t believe the

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil -Thomas Mann

I suggest people look up Mohammad Amin al-Husayni before debating further.  Ask yourself does Fatah recognize the Holocaust? and why not?  the answer is because the root of the creation of the so called Palestinian people is part of the “Final Solution”.  The Holocaust against the Jews never stopped, it merely changed it’s language and created a fictional identity.  Jerusalem is not a holy city in the works of Mohammad.  In fact there was never a Mosque in Jerusalem during his lifetime.  This is historical fact.  The entire recreation of history is merely an attack on Jews.  Since doctrine has more violence in it then the works of Adolf Hitler this is not a surprise that they would revision such things.  

Muhammad defecated facing Jerusalem – Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.147

April 8, 2010

(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.147)

Obama will have to renovate the bathrooms in the Whitehouse

Toilet in Islam

Remember Islam is not just a Religion (subject to conjecture), but a COMPLETE way of life.

Toilet protocols, as prescribed in Islam, are mandatory to all Muslims. Islamic toilet instructions contains obnoxious, tasteless, indecent, and uncivil manners and customs. Allah will never forgive a Muslim for deviating from His standard of Islamic toilet habits as demonstrated by Muhammad.

The Qur’an says a Muslim must emulate Muhammad’s manners, traditions, and practices at all time. In verses 3:132 and 4:80 Allah says that obeying Him and Muhammad (i.e., Muhammad’s examples) is mandatory.

This means Muslims have no choice but to follow Muhammad’s deeds, as this constitutes the obeying the commands of Allah. A similar command is echoed in verse 33:36 where Allah stipulates that provisions (rules and examples, even toilet rules) set by Allah and Muhammad is binding to all Muslims; there are no alternatives.

Ibn Kathir adds more punch to Allah’s command He writes that this verse is general in meaning and applies to all matters, i.e., if Allah and His Messenger decreed a matter, no one has the right to go against that, and no one has any choice or room for personal opinion on that case.

Allah decrees in verse 33:21 that He has made Muhammad an excellent example for the believers to follow and in verse 68:4 Allah reminds the Muslims that Muhammad is the exalted (ultimate/excellent) standard of character. Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad has great character traits with which Allah has honoured him.

Allah promises great rewards for emulating Muhammad’s habits, manners, and instructions. In verse 33:71 Allah declares that obeying Allah and Muhammad are the highest achievements, and in verse 3:31 Allah sets a condition that if any Muslim loves Allah then he/she must follow Muhammad, and Allah will forgive his/her sins. Verse 4:13 guarantees paradise for those who blindly obey Muhammad.

Allah prescribes sever punishment for not emulating Muhammad. In verse 47:33 Allah says that if Muslims do not obey Muhammad, then He will nullify all their good deeds. In verse 48:13 we read that Allah has prepared a blazing fire for those who reject Him and his apostle Muhammad. In verse 58:5 Allah has decreed that those who reject Allah and His messenger (Muhammad) will be reduced to dust.

Here is what Ash Shifa (p.316) writes about imitating Muhammad absolutely:

It is also known that the Companions were in the habit of imitating the actions of the Prophet, whatever they were and in every way, just as they obeyed whatever he said. They threw away their signet rings when he threw his away.

They discarded their sandals when he discarded his. They used as a proof for facing Jerusalem when going to the lavatory the fact that Ibn ‘Umar saw him doing so. Others found a proof for other actions both in the category of worship and general custom by saying, “I saw the Messenger of Allah do it.”

In Islam, there is no date of expiry of Muhammad’s traditions and practices they are eternal.

It is also important to keep in perspective the primitive toilet facilities in Muhammad’s household. The truth is: Muhammad, including his wives, used to relieve themselves in the open desert, under the open sky. The males could defecate any time of the day or night, but Muhammad’s wives were restricted to answer their calls of nature only at night.

♦ Described by a few hadith, we have a glimpse of the abject toilet facilities in Muhammad’s family.

Here are a few examples:

Wives of Muhammad answered the call of nature in the open field…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.148, 149).

During Hajj some of Muhammad’s companions had their penises dripping with prostrate fluid…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.10.1785)

When defecating together (two men) do not converse, do not look at each others private parts…(Sunaan ibn Majah, 1.342)

Carry three stones while relieving yourself in desert…(Mishkat, 1.186)

To be certain, let us read in full, one hadis from Sahih Bukhari:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night.

♦ We will now examine a few outstanding features of Islamic toilets.

Jinns and Devils Haunt Islamic Toilets

If we happen to be in an Islamic Paradise, we might be completely surprised that many Muslims still believe these Islamic voodoos.

For example, if you are in a village in Bangladesh or Pakistan, you will come across with many devout Muslims who will vouch that they had seen jinns inside their primitive latrines.

A few of them might even swear that the local Imam or an Islamic mendicant had been able to chase out jinns and devils from their toilets when the jinns or devils caught their women in the toilets. Note that it is usually the women (pretty ones) who fall victims to the jinns and devils residing in rural Islamic latrines.

In Sunaan Abu Dawud (1.0006) we read that toilets are frequented by jinns and devils. Sunaan ibn Majah (1.296) writes that devils visit public toilets.

Let us read in full the first hadith: Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0006: Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: These privies are frequented by the jinns and devils. So when anyone amongst you goes there, he should say: “I seek refuge in Allah from male and female devils.” Pray Before Entering an Islamic Toilet

Since jinns and devils visit Islamic toilets, Muhammad instructed his followers to offer prayer when entering a lavatory.

Pray when answering the call of nature…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.144)

When you enter a lavatory say, “O Allah, I seek refuge in Thee from wicked and noxious things.”…(Sahih Muslim, 3.0729)

When entering a toilet, say a prayer: O’ Allah I seek refuge with you from all offensive and wicked things (evil deeds and evil spirits)…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.19)

To screen you from jinns, when visiting toilet say Bismillah…(Sunaan Tirmidhi, 130)

Do Not Hold Your Penis With Your Right Hand

In Islam, it is haram to hold your penis with your right hand when you defecate or urinate.

Regarding your penis manner while in an Islamic Toilet, there are many hadith, in all the Sahih Sitta (the six authentic) on this specification of Allah.

♦ Here is a collection of a few interesting hadith on Islamic manners of cleaning yourself in the toilet.

Do not breath while drinking water; do not touch penis in lavatory and do not cleanse private parts with your right hand…(Sahih Bukhari, 1. 4.155)

While urinating, do not hold penis with your right hand…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.156)

While in a toilet do not touch penis with your right hand…(Sahih Muslim, 2.0512)

While urinating or defecating do not touch your penis with your right hand…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.1.0031)

When urinating do not touch your penis with your right hand…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.24, 25)

Use left hand for private parts…(Mishkat, 1.185)

Do not touch male organ with right hand…(Mishkat, 1.183)

Use left hand for touching private parts…(Mishkat, 1.185)

♦ Rules on Islamic Defecation

Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0044: Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The following verse was revealed in connection with the people of Quba’: “In it are men who love to be purified” (ix.108). He (Abu Hurayrah) said: They used to cleanse themselves with water after easing. So the verse was revealed in connection with them.

One compulsory provision of Islamic toilet manner is that during defecation a Muslim must position himself in such a manner that neither his face nor his back (that is, buttock) should face the Qibla (Kaba).

Muslims must obey this rule whether defecating in an open desert or inside a latrine in his house.

Here are a few hadith on this:

While defecating in the open space neither face nor turn your back towards Qibla (Kaba); instead, face the east or the west…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.146)

While excreting or urinating do not face the Qibla…(Sahih Muslim, 2.0504)

When defecating in the desert do not face Qibla nor turn your backside towards Qibla; use three sods and your right hand to cleanse your private parts…(Sunaan Tirmidhi, 128)

While defecating do not face or show backside to Allah…(Mishkat, 1.185)

Interestingly, Muhammad, at times, had violated Allah’s rules. Here is the proof:

Muhammad urinated by turning his face towards the Qibla…(Sunaan ibn Majah, 1.325)

Muhammad defecated facing Jerusalem…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.147)

Muhammad stipulated that if you wear a ring, you must remove it when going inside a toilet.

True to this funny Islamic Toilet protocol, a hadis in Sunaan Abu Dawud (1.0019) and Sunaan ibn Majah (1.3033) state that Muhammad used to remove his ring when visiting a toilet.

Another interesting hadith in Sahih Muslim (7.2942) says that a Muslim can defecate in a river. In this case there might not be any necessity to cleanse his anus, as river water will do the job.

Curiously, a hadis in Sunaan Nasai (1.50, 51) says that having defecated, and having cleansed yourself, you should rub two hands on earth.

♦ Here are a few more interesting ahadith on defecating in Islamic manner:

After defecating do not use bones or dung; use stones to cleanse yourself…(Sahih Bukhari, 1.4.157)

Use odd number of stones (minimum three) to clean your private parts…(Sahih Bukhari, 1. 4.162)

Use three stones to clean yourself after defecating…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.0040)

When visiting a toilet carry three stones with you…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.1.0040)

After you defecate, use two clods of earth; do not use dung…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.42)

If you defecate in a desert use three stones, no need to use water…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.44)

♦ Rules on Islamic Urination

If we are confounded with bizarre Islamic rules on defecating, here are more rules on urinating:

Do not urinate in stagnant water…(Sunaan ibn Majah, 1.343)

Do not urinate standing; Umar did that but Muhammad reprobated him…(Sunaan Tirmidhi, 133)

During night you may urinate in a vessel…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.32)

At night Muhammad used to urinate on a wooden vessel…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.0024)

Do not urinate in a hole…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.34)

Urinate in a soft ground…(Mishkat, 1.185)

Do not urinate in a place of bath and then take bath there…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.36)

Do not return salutation when you are urinating…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.37)

After urinating sprinkle water on your private parts…(Sunaan Nasai, 1.136, 137)

As was often the case, Muhammad had violated his own rules on urination.

Muhammad urinated standing…(Sahih Bukhari, 1. 4.226)

Muhammad had urinated standing…(Sunaan ibn Majah, 1.305

♦ Islamic Bathing Rules

Here are a few interesting rules on Islamic bath (ghusl):

Females cannot use the leftover water by males, but the males can use the leftover water by females…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.0081)

Muhammad forbade the use of leftover water by females to be used by males…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.0082)

Muhammad and his wives took bath from the same vessel of water…(Sunaan ibn Majah, 1.379)

Leprosy is caused by taking bath in water exposed to the sun…(Mishkat, 1.245)


JihadJane: American blonde accused of terror plot and used social media like Youtube for contacts

March 10, 2010

Looks like Mohammed ain’t the only Islam Bitch Woof! Woof! Woof!

The indictment says that Ms LaRose posted a YouTube video as JihadJane in June 2008 saying she was “desperate to do something somehow to help” Muslims.

Youtube? but of course… isn’t that why the Jewish Internet Defense Force was trying to get google to pull down these videos?

Within months, she was in contact with jihadists in Europe and Asia and agreed to marry a South Asian man to get him into Europe. In March last year the same man told her via e-mail to go to Sweden, find Mr Vilks “and kill him”. According to the indictment, Mr LaRose replied: “i will make this my goal till i achieve it or die trying.” Ms LaRose is said to have used the name JihadJane to create a MySpace page on which she described herself as a woman who had “reverted to Islam”.

“I live in Pennsylvania, originally from Texas. I have recently (a couple months) reverted to Islam and I can safely say that of all the things I have ever done in my lifetime, becoming Muslim is what I am the proudest of,” she wrote.

Jihad Jane” has been accused of plotting to murder a Swedish cartoonist for drawing a picture of the Prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog

the artist, Lars Vilks.

According to American media, the 40-year-old had internet contact with at least one of the seven people arrested in Ireland.

The connection between Jihad Jane and the seven, four men and three women, has been confirmed by two US officials to The Philadelphia Enquirer and by a spokesperson for the Irish police to news agency TT. The nature of the link is not yet known.

According to the charges in her indictment published on Tuesday, Colleen LaRose is suspected of “conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.”