Muslims WorldWide

Quran endorses Muslims to have sex with anything that moves, dead or alive – even watermelons


The “Holy” Koran

Koran’s Shahi Muslim, Hadith 525 in the Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid) but only the Arabic version, the English having the verses erased, instruct Muslims to wash their penis (Hash-fa, lit. “the head of the male member”) after it has penetrated a woman’s anus, or a man’s anus, or an animal’s vagina or anus. Whether these are dead, young or old.

In other words, animals, humans, children – nothing matters. They can molest and rape anything.

Including water melons.

The Tafsirs:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID=2

 

 

 

35 thoughts on “Quran endorses Muslims to have sex with anything that moves, dead or alive – even watermelons

  1. Üzenem ezeknek a kecskebaszóknak, hogy engem nem zavar, hogy mozog még az anyjuk ! Főleg amikor seggbe dugják ! 😀 Ja, tévedés, hogy azt mormolják, hogy ALLAH AKBAR !!!! Tévedés ! A retkes qrva anyjukat szidják ánuszozás közben : VALAG BABBAL !!!!

    Like

  2. I would like to see these people on the Day of the Judgment how will they react for all the lies they telling about Islam, and they not even Muslims! Ya rabb give mind to the people who do not understand

    Like

    • WOOHOO, an Islamidiot got so offended that he/she had to give me a ThumbsDown. It’s nice to know that my efforts at ridiculing Islam are being appreciated. ☺ ☺ ☺

      Like

    • Please, please, please – give me more thumbs down, you lovely Islamidiots. It’ll be good for you too, because then you can tell the dole office that you’ve been very active when you go to collect your benefit.

      Like

  3. Well, the opening statement is totally misleading when it said ‘Koran’s Sahi Muslim’ when Koran and Sahi Muslim are two totally separate things. Koran is the holy, undisputed, word of Allah and all hadiths were written by men, hundreds of years later after Muhammad’s PBUH passed away. Lots of the hadiths were taken off the collection once their credibility was in question. Also, only those hadiths are acceptable which are NOT in contradiction to Koran so it is not unusual if hadiths are not considered reliable on one issue or the other. I know the admin knows this fact for sure but intentionally presented it this way for the readers who may not aware of the fact and to misguide them as much as possible, as obviously being the sole purpose of this site. The rest of the article is garbage!!

    Like

    • So, you admit that you can’t even trust your own scriptures? They are so contradictory and false that you have to categorize them under “more/strong”, “less/weak” or “not reliable/invalid” sections. Yet you insist the Koran is infallible…
      Why do you hide your Muslims name, btw? Are you ashamed of being Muslim?

      Like

      • Well, our sacred scripture is Koran and only Koran, and we trust every word of it, period. Hadiths collections are men made and men make mistakes. Something that does not make sense, it is surely a mistake, What is the difficult part here that you can’t understand? Let me jog your memory. Remember, when lots of bible versions were discarded by early church?? Remember the reasons??? Hope I gave your thought process a bit of direction.
        And why did you assume this is not my real name? Man, are you admin for real???

        http://www.muslimconverts.com/muslimnames/how-a-convert-changes-name.htm

        Like

      • Well, we’re not Christians (nor jews) but we do know that the attempt to alter and abrogate scriptures according to your whims, like in Islam, is not at all encouraged or common in any religion (Christianity, Judasim, Buddhism, Hinduism), except yours.
        If you truly go back to the oldest Koran and believe in it as you claim, then your prophet would not exist since he’s not mentioned and there exist no indications of his “teachings”. And your rewards in Jannah is merely a bunch of grapes you enjoy together with your earthly wife (ONE wife, not four). But since the Koran and the rest is always abrogated and changed, you don’t even know what to follow and not follow. Its a completely false and made-up religion, pillaged by a mad-man who was accused of falsifying prophethood he never possessed and who was referred to as a demon by the scholars of his time. Your prophet was a Jinn. Go back to the original Satanic Verses and read it yourself.

        Like

      • And here’s your answer from historians and scholars on the oldest Koran:

        The BBC Koran from Birmingham is “one of” earliest Koran that is said to predate Mohammed. But none of the early Korans mentions Mohammed or Islam which would mean your Mohammed never got any revelations from Angel Gabriel in the first place. Your BBC Koran predates Mohammed according to radiocarbon dating, meaning the entire Islamic religion is a forgery. Not exactly a good example of ‘proof’ you have provided, but nevertheless. Let’s wait til they translate it… what will you Muslims then say in defense when it has little correlation to the Koran of today, like the other “oldest” Korans?

        http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/31/oldest-koran-destabilises-islamic-history-carbon-dating-says-it-pre-dates-mohammed/

        Like

      • Carbon dating is done on material…not the ink used. One can use older parchment to write on. Hope this is simple enough for you!!! Point is the text did not change since the mid 600s AD.

        Like

      • You’ve provided a counter-argument to your own statement. To assess the year, carbon dating is done on both the material AND the ink. The ink, of course, is a more accurate source for carbon dating than the material since the ink relates much closer to the time frame of the writings. Carbon dating the material serves as a second confirmation although skin parchments could be curated much longer than ink before use.

        The oldest Koran you referred to has (so far) been dated between 568 AD to 645 AD while Mohammed’s birth is dated to 578 AD and 632 AD. This destabilizes the claims by Muslims that Mohammed received the Koran as a revelation given him by angel Gabriel. It also throw off the claim that Mohammed was the “last prophet”. Rather, this oldest Koran confirm the Satanic Verses, which insist that Mohammed lied and deceived people and was possessed. Therefore, Mohammed was neither a prophet nor the last prophet and the most vital claims within Islam are untrue and invalidated.

        So the oldest Koran predates Mohammed birth by many decades, potentially even centuries, which explains why Mohammed is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran. The oldest Koran also don’t correlate to the current day Koran which demonstrates that Muslims constantly change, abrogate and edit the texts – meaning the entire Islamic religion is completely unreliable even from a historic context.
        Reality is that Muslims are basically a dark-sheep jewish group; Islam originates from judaism. Your Islamic scholars have deceived you all.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Muhammad (MHRIH) didn’t (just) pass away either. He was poisoned. Killed by a Jewess. “The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, “What induced you to do what you have done?” She replied, “You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, “If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, “If you are a king we will get rid of you.” – Ibn Sa’d p. 252
      As for Zaynab … PBUH !!!

      Like

      • Some Islamic scholars argue that the Koran, Sirat and Hadits indicate that it was the raped baby-bride Aiysha who poisoned Mohammed. She hated the sight of him, says the “holy” book. No wonder…

        Like

      • I heard people were good story tellers back then. You are even better!

        Zaynab Bibi was Muhammad’s PBUH cousin and was converted to Islam years before getting married to Muhammad. So your rest of the story is already up in the air!!

        Like

      • Mr. Admin: Not sure how u are made Admin, it sure does not look like it was done based on your IQ level. No offence but you keep showing that your self.
        Again Sira and Hadith are the same thing. All info on Sira comes from Hadith, Koran barely talked about individuals during the life of Muhammad. Want to show some evidence of those ‘scholars’….Mr. Admin.

        However, I must give you credit for doing what you are supposed to do I ‘d reckon. Spreading lies and hatred. I see you have done a good job here.

        Like

      • “As for Zaynab … PBUH !!!” – brilliant, mate, brilliant. I love your idea of utilising the f__king durood against Poohammer by applying it to Zaynab.
        I’m probably a bit thick – I can’t figure out your MHRIH (Muhammad Has Rabies In Him ?).

        Dear Sir,
        I respectfully apply for a clarification of MHRIH, at your convenience. Thank you.
        Sincerely,
        SKULL
        ☺☺☺

        Like

      • @ PARIS MADAM
        “Again Sira and Hadith are the same thing”.
        So why are we Kuffar constantly being admonished that Sira and Ahadith are NOT the same in value?!
        Have you never been told that the hierarchy is (supposedly☺):
        Quran – allegedly the literal word of Allah
        Ahadith – narratives about Moocamel’s and his (its?) companions’ words and deeds
        Sira – the biography of Moocamel

        How long ago did you recite the Shalala for the first time? Can’t have been too long ago, ’cause you seem to know Jacob Faeces.

        Like

      • Isn’t that funny… now our “Haris Adam” suddenly believes in the authenticity of the Hadiths and the Sirath when referring to Zaynab – the same verses which he earlier denied to be authentic when quoted in the video to endorse sex with anything that lives and moves, including watermelons. Just proves our point. Muslims abrogate everything to suit their own arguments and interests. They have no factual or historic interest in accuracies. The whole religion is warfare propaganda, created by fraud to loot and deceive people in times of (Muslim barbarian) invasions.

        Like

      • @ PARIS MADAM
        “Zaynab Bibi was Muhammad’s PBUH cousin and was converted to Islam years before getting married to Muhammad. So your rest of the story is already up in the air!!”
        That’s true, Zaynab Bibi was Moocamel’s (Preposterous Baconphobic Unacceptable Hatemonger) cousin. However…
        Nowhere(!) did RISEAKNIGHT write “Zaynab Bibi”, you fool. He only wrote the name Zaynab. YOU added the Bibi, you liar. Or maybe you’re not a liar, you just can’t read. That would make sense, ’cause you have to emulate your illiterate poophead, don’t ya?!
        Oh, and guess what the Jewess, who allegedly poisoned Moocamel (supposedly causing his death FOUR years later… ☺ I’m self-urinating with mirth) was called? I’ll give you a hint – her name begins with Z.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, one can’t argue with folks like you who are either brainless…or don’t want to use it if they luckily have one. Playing with names shows how much mentally retarded you are. Surely that’s the best you could do!!!

        Read my post again. Only those contents are questionable in Hadiths that are in contradiction with Koran, simple. I never discredited the whole collection of Hadiths, just the ones that are contradictory.
        Here is a copy of my post again: “Hadiths collections are men made and men make mistakes. Something that does not make sense, it is surely a mistake, What is the difficult part here that you can’t understand?”.

        Like

      • Here is what Koran says about sex. Anything else is considered null and void, regardless where ever it is, hadiths, Ibn Saad, Ibn Saud, Ibn Knight or Ibn Admin.

        “(The true believers are those) Who scrupulously guard their private parts, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond”

        Anything above and beyond is null and void!!

        Like

      • @ PARIS MADAM
        Well, one can’t argue with folks like you who are either brainless…or don’t want to use it if they luckily have one.
        There’s a typo in there. But that’s alright, I forgive you. I’ll even correct it for you, that’s how nice I am. You should have written: “Well, one can’t argue with folks like me who are either brainless…or don’t want to use it if they luckily have one.” There you go. Don’t bother thanking me – I owe you a debt of gratitude, my friend, because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I’m able to give assistance to a stranger. There’s no-one stranger than you here, so THANK YOU!

        Playing with names shows how much mentally retarded you are.
        Didn’t you learn English? No? Superb, I get to help you again. Thank you, thank you!
        The first change you need to make: remove the word “much” and replace it with a word that maintains your sentence’s grammatical integrity. I would suggest something like “severely”, “incredibly”, “utterly” or, if you don’t like words that end in “y”, you could use “downright”.
        The second change you need to make: replace “mentally retarded” because it’s considered politically incorrect in the 21st century to use that term. The socially appropriate term today is “intellectually disabled”. The WHO’s ICD-10 codes F70-F79 still fall under the heading of “mental retardation” but they’re expected to be updated at the next revision, which will bring us ICD-11 codes.
        So much for the individual internal deficiencies of your sentence. I have to unfortunately inform you that, even after those two corrections, your statement as a whole, though now grammatically correct, is still inaccurate. You see, to be “much mentally retarded” I would require an IQ of 70 or less. My last IQ test certified my IQ as 119. I have to confess that that was 11 years ago, but I would venture to say that it is highly improbable for me to have suffered an IQ reduction of 49 points in those years, wouldn’t you agree? The only thing that might even remotely possibly cause such a drastic reduction in IQ might have been when I had my scalp tattooed left and right, but that was 25 years ago (if you don’t have a calculator handy, that’s 14 years before my last IQ test).

        Surely that’s the best you could do!!!
        Well, yes, I admit that my humour is not to everyone’s taste.

        Read my post again.
        No thank you.

        Only those contents are questionable in Hadiths that are in contradiction with Koran, simple. I never discredited the whole collection of Hadiths, just the ones that are contradictory.
        Here is a copy of my post again: “Hadiths collections are men made and men make mistakes. Something that does not make sense, it is surely a mistake, What is the difficult part here that you can’t understand?”

        I confess, those sentences confuse me. I have absolutely no idea why you are stating these things. My post was:
        @ PARIS MADAM
        “Again Sira and Hadith are the same thing”.
        So why are we Kuffar constantly being admonished that Sira and Ahadith are NOT the same in value?!
        Have you never been told that the hierarchy is (supposedly☺):
        Quran – allegedly the literal word of Allah
        Ahadith – narratives about Moocamel’s and his (its?) companions’ words and deeds
        Sira – the biography of Moocamel

        How long ago did you recite the Shalala for the first time? Can’t have been too long ago, ’cause you seem to know Jacob Faeces.
        Please, would you be so kind as to explain in what way exactly your protestations relate to what I wrote?!

        It’s almost 4am now, I’ve been up all night and I’d like to get a bit of shut-eye. I’m looking forward to reading your reply whenever it is that I decide to get up.

        Like

      • Hey PARIS MADAM, where are you, you cowardly piece of shit? Have you run away or are you still desperately trying to come up with another one of your “brilliant” comebacks?

        Jews are NOT the descendants of pigs and monkeys but Muslims ARE the descendants of dogs!!!

        ISLAM IS MY ENEMY !!!
        I DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH !!!
        I SPIT AT MUHAMMAD !!!

        (Preposterous Bacon-o-phobic Unacceptable Hatemonger)

        Like

Published under FAIR USE of factual content citing US 17 U.S.C. § 107 fair use protection, Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and UK Section 30(1) of the 1988 Act.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s