-------------- --------------- -------------- --------

"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)


I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Wednesday, December 26, 2012


The date of December 25th coincided with a particular festival among the Romans in the pre-Christian era called Saturnalia that was observed during the winter solstice.  This festival was dedicated by the Romans to one of their pagan gods named Saturn.  It was considered a big event and celebrated for an entire week.

Depending on the shift of the calendar, the event of the winter solstice occurs between December 20th and 23rd each year in the Northern hemisphere, and between June 20th and 23rd in the Southern hemisphere.  It is supposed to be the shortest day or the longest night of the year.  Though the Winter Solstice lasts an instant, the term is used to refer to the full 24-hour period. 

Winter festivals in ancient Rome associated with the winter solstice were known as 'Yule.'

As Wikipedia puts it - "Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus...  The date of the celebration is traditional, and is not considered to be his actual date of birth.  Christmas festivities often combine the commemoration of Jesus' birth with various customs, many of which have been influenced by earlier winter festivals."

After the Romans embraced Christianity, the church thereby offered people (many of whom were new converts to Christianity still devoted to their pagan traditions) a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities that re-interpreted many of their old pagan symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice.

Not just Christmas, but several Christian holidays were put around the pagan dates and customs, and replaced with Christian names by the Church in Rome.  For example:

Valentines Day (pagan title, Imbolgc)
Easter (pagan title, Ostara)
Halloween (pagan title, Samhain)
Christmas (pagan title, Yule)

Edward Gibbon writes: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol" 

Grolier's encyclopedia mentions:  " .. under the Emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the 'Invincible Sun' on December 25th. In the Eastern Church, January 6th, also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas."

Thus, December 25 got selected as the official birth date of Jesus.  But all historians and biblical scholars are convinced that it's unauthentic.  They are sure the birth was in some other season, most likely fall.

Was December 25 the birth date of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary?

Jerusalem on Dec.28 of 2006

A 3rd century theologian of the Catholic Church in Rome named Hyppolytus was the first person who proclaimed December 25 as the birth date of Jesus.  Very little is known about Hippolytus in history except that he was a 3rd century priest, a Greek speaking Roman cleric and an anti-pope who often came into conflict with the popes.  He was exiled in the island of Sardinia in southern Italy where he died.  He was given the title of 'saint' much later.

The earliest mention of some sort of observance of the birth of Jesus on December 25th is in the Roman Calendar, which indicates that this festival first began being observed by the church in Rome by the 2nd century (or the year 336 A.D.).  Later, most influential Christian personalities began favoring the same date.  Thus, the practice began and got established gradually.

All known figures in the history of the Church who asserted and confirmed the 'correctness' of this date did so by accessing the Roman birth census.  There is absolutely no record prior to that indicating December 25th as the birth date of Jesus.  Thus, it eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas.  However, there's little doubt that this was entirely arranged by the authorities in Rome for purposes of convenience rather than any historical truth.

It's interesting to consider the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem where Jesus was born. The Jewish month of Chislev (corresponding to November/December) was a month with cold and rainy weather. The month after that was Tebeth (December/January). It saw the lowest temperatures of the year with occasional snow in the highlands. The Bible does not say when Jesus was born, but it does give sound reason to conclude that the birth of Jesus did not take place in December.  Let's discuss what the Bible mentions about the climate of that region, and the Bible's own contradiction of the period of Jesus' birth.

Bible writer Ezra shows that 'Chislev' was indeed a month known for cold and rainy weather.  After stating that a crowd had gathered in Jerusalem "in the ninth month [Chislev] on the twentieth day of the month," Ezra reports that people were "shivering . . . on account of the showers of rain." Concerning weather conditions at that time of the year, the congregated people themselves said: "It is the season of showers of rain, and it is not possible to stand outside." (Ezra 10:9, 13; Jeremiah 36:22).  The shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night in December.  The Bible reports, however, that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus' birth.  In fact, the Bible writer Luke states that at the time of the birth of Jesus, shepherds were "living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks" near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12).   Notice that the shepherds were actually living outdoors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly, rainy and sometimes even snowy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December?  It obviously doesn't.  Judean winters were too cold for shepherds to be watching their flocks outdoor, particularly at night.  Many historians and scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer birthdate.

For the purpose of upholding the tradition of December 25th, many orthodox Christians argue by refuting the actual climatic conditions of Bethleham and the regions around.  They claim that these regions come under the umbrella of the Mediterranean climate of mild winters with February at its coldest.  Thus they argue that December can be balmy enough to graze sheep.  However, according to weather analysts and the residents of this part of the world, such a claim completely contradicts the actual and existing winter conditions of the region.

Palestinian and Western meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in this region has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).

The temperature in and around Bethleham in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to  below freezing, especially at night.  Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation at the time when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.

This important piece of evidence along with the narration of Luke 2:8 stating: "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night" goes much against a December birth date for Jesus.   A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.

The Roman census presided by Roman officials took place every year by law in every province under Roman rule.  Census was also imposed on Syria and Judea (ancient name of a portion of Palestine) when these two provinces came under direct Roman rule.  It involved the enrollment of every citizen for evaluating their assets for tax purposes.  It was mandatory for every person living within the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire to participate in the census every year.

The Roman census recorded by Luke is yet another evidence arguing against a December birth.  Let us read the census described by Luke 2:1-7 that mentions: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son..."

Authors, historians and scholars argue that the Roman and Judean rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular.  Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the dates for the Roman census, this would probably be the season of the birth of Jesus, son of Mary -- perhaps September or October.

It's important to know that in the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of Jesus' birth.  Not until the year 336 A.D. does one find the first mention of a celebration of his birth.  Why this omission?  According to the church, for 3 centuries after Jesus, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of his "death."  In comparison, the date of his birth was considered insignificant.  As the Encyclopedia Americana explains, "Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth..." (1944 edition, "Christmas").  Origen, a Christian theologian in the early days of the Christian church (185-254 A.D.) strongly recommended against birthday celebrations. "In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day").

Speculations on a specific date of birth of Jesus began as late as the 3rd and 4th centuries. A loud controversy arose among the various church leaders. Several of them were strongly opposed to such a celebration. During this time, eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various theologians.  December 25th, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Church in Rome.

Just as all authentic Biblical history is completely lost at present, so is the authentic birth date of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary. 

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Ablution washes away immorality? False and disgraceful Hadith!

This disgusting humbug from Hadith leaves me speechless.  Of course, it needs to be trashed immediately.  It is completely unauthentic.

Although the Noble Quran has made it crystal clear that wudu (ablution) is only for the purpose of physically cleansing ourselves prior to offering prayer, much to the contrary, Hadith insists that ablution washes away sins like tangible dirt resulting in one's complete innocence within minutes.  Is it that easy to attain piety from the view point of Hadith?

Please check the following FALSE narrations:

“Abu Huraira reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When a bondsman-a Muslim or a believer-washes his face (in course of ablution), every sin he contemplated with his eyes, will be washed away from his face along with water, or with the last drop of water; when he washes his hands, every sin they wrought will be effaced from his hands with the water, or with the last drop of water; and when he washes his feet, every sin towards which his feet have walked will be washed away with the water or with the last drop of water with the result that he comes out pure from all sins." (Muslim Book 2, Number 475)

“Usman b. ‘Affan reported: The Messenger of Allah (way peace be upon him) said: He who performed ablution well, his sins would come out from his body, even coming out from under his nails." (Muslim Book 2, Number 476)

“Ablution removes the sins of the face, mouth, and the nostrils…(Sahih Muslim, 4.1812)"  
It's also shameful that one of the above Hadiths have labelled Usman bin Affan as the narrator which is a lie.  Usman was the third righteous Caliph and he never concocted any such horribly sinful rules in blatant contradiction to the Noble Quran.
These disgusting Ahadith have had a shattering affect on the morals of many Muslims. 
Several staunch and selfish Hadithists are seriously convinced that no matter what they do, after they perform ablution, all of their Haram acts are erased.  Even if they realize the awfulness of such Hadith, they still adhere to it because it condones their Haram behavior and allows them to be misled by their lower desires.
These lies have made it simple for those who follow Satan to make light of their sins.  These lies mock the Noble Quran which emphasizes so greatly upon high morals and modesty.  These terrible lies deride the exemplary character of our beloved Prophet (sw) by FALSELY attributing distortions and deceit to him.  
The following is a SHOCKING excerpt from a document of a Hadithist posted at Scribd.

"The most important reward from ablution is that it is a cleansing process—not for the body itself, for, even after ablution plenty of dirt and pollution might stay in the body, but from all sins. In reality, a Muslim can commit any number of sins, and just by performing ablution all the sins committed prior to ablution will be expiated. Sahih Muslim (2.0476) writes that if you perform ablution all sins will come out of your body even from your nails. To entice the Muslims to the complete surrender to this endless daily ritual, Sahih Bukhari (1.4.161) writes that if a Muslim performs perfect ablution Allah forgives sins committed between two prayers. In Sahih Muslim (2.0475) we read that during ablution Allah forgives all sins (committed by eyes) for washing eyes. Ditto for hands, and other parts of the body.

The above few sentences will explain why many Muslim students/residents in non Muslim countries such as Australia, USA, Canada…and so on demand exclusive ablution facilities in campuses and in other public toilets. They want to do perfect ablution so that whatever sins they commit in infidel lands, such as doing sex with boy friend (infidel), girl friend (infidel), visiting brothels, watching pornography, drinking wine, eating non halal food, joining disco dancing, enjoying infidel parties. Having committed such sins, all they need is to perform a perfect ablution within twenty four hours to absolve themselves from the contrition.Then they can start all over again.

Mind you, the ritual of ablution does not always end with prayer. In Sunaan Abu Dawud (1.1.0220) we read that one must perform ablution between two sexual intercourses."


So this means that everyday they commit sins and every following day they "start all over again" only to commit the same sins all over again and that becomes a cycle.  These lowly and filthy hypocrites need a sound thrashing, don't they?! 

Abu Dawud is apparently trying to express that if anyone commits zina , it's okay as long as they perform ablution in between every such act of sin.  What a vulgar and despicable monster!  These writings only confirm that the  Hadith writers were a bunch of lowlife dirtbags and slimes otherwise it's impossible for anyone with an iota of decency to even conceive of such ideas, let alone write them for the purpose of being circulated.  This is pure Satanism on the Hell bound train!  

Complete REJECTION of the above Ahadith by the Noble Quran:

The Noble Quran categorically states:

"And those who, when they do an evil thing or wrong themselves, remember Allah and implore forgiveness for their sins - Who forgiveth sins save Allah only ? - and will not knowingly repeat (the wrong) they did. "  (4:17-18).

"Those who avoid enormities of sin and abominations, save the unwilled offences - (for them) lo! thy Lord is of vast mercy."  (53:32)

"And when they do some lewdness they say:  We found our fathers doing it and Allah enjoined it on us.  Say:  Allah verily enjoineth not lewdness.  Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?"  (7:28).

We seek refuge in Allah, The Greatest, from all such gross misguidance by the evil ones.   Ameen ya Raab.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

HISTORY: Meyerling murder-suicide incident, not "suicide pact"

The Meyerling incident happened in Austria in the late 1800s within the "royal" circles.

The 30-year-old Austrian Crown Prince, Rudolf, the only son of emperor Franz, was married with a child but also had a mistress named Mary who was the daughter of one of the courtiers. 

Initially the emperor and his wife ignored their son's extra-marital affair.  But after a while when too many rumors began spreading, they opposed the relationship and adamantly told the crown prince to end it.  He was terribly upset.

Then .. some day in the winter of January 1889, crown prince Rudolf went to spend a few days in his hunting lodge at a place called Mayerling with his mistress, Mary.  He was also accompanied by his valet and a hunting companion.  The next morning when they didn't hear from the couple for a long time, the valet and the hunting companion had to break open the bedroom door to find the couple shot dead.

First a false rumor spread that he died of blockage of an artery in the heart.  But that sounded too unreal.  No one believed it.   And the question remained, how did his mistress die too?  

After a much closer and careful examination, the truth was disclosed only within the close circles.  Rudolf had first shot his mistress while she was asleep and then shot himself a little later.  The cause was his sadness for not being allowed to wed Mary.  But the official version disclosed to the public was a "suicide pact" although every shred of evidence was against it.    Though Mary was enjoying romancing with the prince as a frivolous teenage girl, yet she never expressed to anyone of her desire to kill herself for her lover's sake.   Neither was any evidence found that the prince shot her with her consent on the understanding that he would also shoot himself later.  Everyone who knew Mary were of the opinion that it was very unlikely, if not impossible, she would have agreed to that. 

Prince Rudolf was a jealous and possessive lover.  When he realized that his parents would never allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress, he couldn't bear the thought of his mistress going on her life without him and marrying someone else.  Committing suicide was not enough. He had to kill her too - a murder of passion.  

When Rudolf and Mary died, they were 30 and 17, respectively.  The love affair was supposed to have lasted for three years.  Thus, when the affair began, Mary was 14 and Rudolf 27.  Apart from being guilty of a murder of passion, according to the present European and North American laws, the crown prince of Austia was also a "pedophile."

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Egypt's Morsi exposed beyond all doubts

How come Morsi grabbed sole legislative power last November disallowing the judiciary from striking down any of his laws or those of the Constituent Assembly?   Prior to that, he also kicked out the entire set of old military officers associated with Mubarak's regime. One might ask, how come the Egyptian military is so silent that has always played such a dominant role?

The answer to the queries is simple.  Here is how the trick is planned. On December 15, Morsi intends to put up a snap referendum on the draft constitution which not only establishes Salafist Sharia rule but also guarantees the Egyptian military complete power, benefits, control over its budget (it receives $2 billion/year from US) and almost total control over Egypt's foreign policy.  Furthermore, Egypt's peace deal with Israel and US financial assistance for the Egyptian army stays intact.  No wonder when Morsi curtailed the power of the judges (a move unthinkable to promote people's rule), Obama's administration ignored it and quietly looked the other way.    

When Morsi kicked out the top brass that worked closely with Mubarak, many unsuspecting Egyptians were happily duped.  They have been secretly hoping since long that the Egyptian "revolution" would eventually be a success, resembling the great Islamic Revolution of Iran 1979 granting total sovereignty to Egypt.  But the reality exposed is so different!  Those dozens of military officers associated with the old regime were booted out only to be replaced by the a new set of officers playing an identical role in the country's political arena. 

The snap referendum and draft constitution coming up are little beyond a decorative piece of window dressing to fool the Egyptians yet again. The old brass has been replaced with a new one with the same institutional and economic power - a change of faces, not a change of regime.  Morsi's promises have been confirmed as false.  The senior members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood are not working with the Egyptian people, they are working with the Egyptian military which primarily supports Zionist interest (as Mubarak did), not the interest of the Egyptians.  It's surmised that several of Morsi's inner circle are just as puzzled over his actions as are the Egyptian people and those watching around the world.

Thousands of Egytians have been protesting against Morsi's recent move.  Juan Cole reports:

"The toll from fighting in Egypt between pro- and anti-Morsi activists all over Egypt was 2 dead, 451 wounded (160 or so police) and about 250 people were arrested on Sunday. (Most of the arrestees were from Muhammad Mahmoud St. off Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo.  Clashes and back and forth fighting continued all day Sunday in the Tahrir area, and the number of people camping out in tents increased." 

However, many who aren't supportive of Morsi haven't joined the protest against him for they are too fed up of the unrest that's been going on since February of 2011.  All they want is stability, no matter how it comes.  Wrapped up in their disgust and frustration, they forget to ask themselves realistically - how can stability be acquired in the presence of corrupt politics?  

Morsi's supporters have been wary, fearing that Morsi's plan might enable the opposition to awaken the Egyptian people.  To thwart the effort of the opposition, government supporters have been calling for mass confrontational rallies mainly from the Salafist segments of the country.  Almost all Egyptian Salafists and hardliners (which are many within the country) support Morsi despite his deceitful policy.  While rallying for Mubarak's ouster, members of the Muslim Brotherhood made plenty of promises and assurances to the people that they would never use the revolution as an opportunity to grab power.  They went to the extent of claiming they were not interested in political power at all and would never collaborate with pro-West and pro-Zionist elements.  All forgotten by the leaders and their supporters!  The shame is unspeakable!!  

Through the upcoming referendum, Morsi will try to seek support for his new constitution which is largely rejected as seen.  More than 20 members of the Constituent Assembly consisting of 100 members have quit already, accusing Morsi that he rigged the process of writing the new constitution with only the Muslim Brotherhood having a role in preparing it.  Supporters of the Freedom & Justice Party of Egypt (FJP) were particularly angry to see Morsi trying to grab absolute power, no different from his predecessor.  The big purpose of the snap referendum is to get the approval of FJP supporters by portraying the referendum as being a contest between "Islam and secularism."   In addition of all his other tricks, Mr. Morsi is also not refraining from using Islam as leverage for political gain. 

Though the next 10 days will be crucial, having the full support of the Egyptian military and the United States, Morsi will almost certainly get his way through.