Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 38, “Sad”
posted at 7:50 am on August 10, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This Meccan sura takes its name from the Arabic letter sad, with which it begins. As always, the letters that begin many suras are left unexplained, and the commentators say that Allah alone knows what he means by these letters. Then verses 1-16 once again excoriate the unbelievers for their scorn and rejection of Muhammad’s message. Allah quotes the unbelievers’ objections; they ask, “Has he” – that is, Muhammad – “made the gods (all) into one Allah?” (v. 5). The question reflects their puzzlement over Muhammad’s assertion that pre-Islamic pagan gods such as Al-Rahman (“The Merciful”) were in reality simply attributes of the one true God. Some historians believe that Muhammad actually enjoined worship of Al-Rahman only for some time, later replacing that name with the name “Allah” – “the God” — and calling al-Rahman one characteristic of Allah.
The scoffers also complain that they never heard the like of Muhammad’s teaching “among the people of these latter days” (v. 7) – that is, according to Ibn ‘Abbas, “We have not heard of this from the religion of these later days (meaning Christianity); if this Qur’an were true, the Christians would have told us about it.” But they have not yet tasted Allah’s punishment (v. 8), and they will ultimately be put to flight (v. 11). In sum, as Maududi puts it, “Allah says that the actual reason with those people for their denial is not any defect in the message of Islam but their own arrogance, jealousy and insistence on following the blind.” This is a very common stance toward nonbelievers to this day among serious Muslims: the idea that one may reject Islam in good faith is difficult for them to accept, as it is so decisively rejected in the Qur’an. Those who rejected the earlier prophets were all punished (v. 14) — and so will be those who reject Muhammad.
Verses 17-29 turn to David, retelling the parable that the prophet Nathan tells the King in 2 Samuel 12:1-9. In the Bible, the point of the story of the rich man with many ewes who takes the single ewe of the poor man is to bring home to David the enormity of his having had Uriah the Hittite killed so that he could take Uriah’s wife Bathsheba. In the Qur’an is none of this, however, except the story of the rich man who took the poor man’s ewe, followed by David’s realization that Allah had tried him (v. 24). The story clearly depends on the Biblical story of Bathsheba — Ibn Kathir says, “In discussing this passage, the scholars of Tafsir [Qur’an commentary] mention a story which is mostly based upon Isra’iliyat [Israelite] narrations. Nothing has been reported about this from the Infallible Prophet that we could accept as true.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn reveals the dependence in saying: “And David thought, in other words, he became certain, that We had indeed tried him, that We had caused him to fall into a trial, that is, a test, through his love for that woman. So he sought forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing, in other words, prostrate, and repented.”
Then follow, in verses 30-40, an account of David’s son Solomon. Regarding Solomon’s horses (v. 31), Ibn Kathir recounts an incident in which Muhammad happened upon one of the toys of his child bride, Aisha: a horse with cloth wings. He asked her, “Did you not hear that Sulayman, peace be upon him, had a horse that had wings?” – and then, says Aisha, “the Messenger of Allah smiled so broadly that I could see his molars.” Embarrassed by their implications, Islamic apologists in the West often deny the Islamic traditions that specify that Aisha was nine when Muhammad (the man they hold up as the supreme example of human conduct) consummated his marriage with her. They say that Aisha was actually 19 when she married Muhammad – but they do not explain why a young woman in her twenties would still be playing with toys, as in the story of her winged horse.
Allah says that he placed on Solomon’s throne a “lifeless body” (v. 34); the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains that this was a “jinn, disguised as Solomon,” and that the incident was part of Allah’s punishment of Solomon “because he had married a woman [solely] out of his desire for her.” The jinn impersonated Solomon and fooled the birds and others with whom Solomon used to converse, frustrating him. But after Solomon asks for Allah’s forgiveness (v. 35), Allah subjects even the winds to his power (v. 36).
Verses 41-48 again goes through the roster of the prophets: Job (vv. 41-44); Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (vv. 45-47); and Ishmael, Elisha, and Dhul-Kifl, who is sometimes identified with Ezekiel (v. 48). Allah tells Job to strike his wife with a handful of grass (v. 44); according to al-Qurtubi, this was because while Job was afflicted, Satan told his wife “a word of disbelief,” which she then told Job. Job was angry, and vowed to give her one hundred lashes; Allah ordered him to fulfill his oath by striking her with this bundle of grass.
The in verses 49-54 Allah again describes the pleasures of Paradise, followed in verses 55-64 with the pains of Hell. The “chaste women” of Paradise will be of “equal age” (v. 52), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as meaning that they will be “girls who are thirty three years of age.” Meanwhile, the damned will be forced to drink both “a boiling fluid, and a fluid dark, murky, intensely cold!” (v. 57). Those who followed the “misleaders” into Hell will reproach them (v. 60) and the leaders and followers will engage in mutual recriminations (v. 64).
Allah tells Muhammad what to say to the unbelievers (verses 65-70): he is just a warner, and Allah is the only God (vv. 65, 70) and he has no knowledge of what the “Highest Chiefs” say (v. 69) – which seems to be a reference to the Exalted Assembly of Allah and his angels (37:7-8).
Verses 71-85 return to the story of the creation of mankind and Satan’s refusal to bow down to Adam, which we have seen before in 2:30-39; 7:11-25; and 15:28-42. It is, of course, a vestige of the Biblical idea that human beings are created in the image of God. But Satan won’t prostrate himself before Adam because, he tells Allah, “I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay” (v. 76). Allah thereupon curses him (vv. 77-78), but then Satan asks for and receives a reprieve until the Day of Judgment (vv. 79-81) and vows to lead astray all mankind except Allah’s “single-minded slaves” (v. 83). Allah then vows to fill Hell with Satan’s followers (v. 85).
The sura ends with Allah telling Muhammad to warn the unbelievers that they will all see the truth of his message “after awhile” (v. 88).
Next week: Sura 39, “Throngs”: “The Unbelievers will be led to Hell in throngs.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“Therein will they recline at ease. Therein can they call for fruit in abundance, and delicious drink; and beside them will be chaste women restraining their glances, companions of equal age.”
Robert, it sounds good to me. 30 bucks says there´s a catch though.
james hooker on August 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Muhammad’s fascination with children and sex always amazes me. It reminds me of the cults that have made the headlines these past few decades.
Another enlightening edition of the blog. Thanks Robert.
Zorro on August 10, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Nice to chide us for ignoring or mocking Allah’s message when Allah itself makes us ignore or mock. The eyes cannot roll far enough.
Truly, this is the most confusing book I’ve ever had the misfortune to try to read through, even with commentary, and that’s after having read Kafka’s unfinished novels.
Mommynator on August 10, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Does any other group focus so much attention in their texts on people who simply don’t believe it’s drivel? It’s purpose seems to be to point out the huge group of potential targets to enslave and milk of wealth.
BL@KBIRD on August 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Mommynator on August 10, 2008 at 10:48 AM
That’s pretty much how I feel about it, but I’m still trying. I always get a chuckle when I hear people like Glenn Beck say “I’ve read the Koran cover to cover.” and then appeal to that deed as some evidence that they know jihadists are misinterpreting something in Islam. My question to people who say that is always “whose tafsir did you use?” If they say “huh?”, I know they probably didn’t get squat out of reading the Koran cover to cover.
forest on August 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Having read through most of Robert’s summary of the Koran to date several things strike me:
1.The concept of Free Will does not exist; Allah has it all planned out and curses those whom he wills unbelievers (see Mommynator’s comment above). So this has always lead me to ask: Why pray?
2. Moe was a pervert and a pedophile. In fact he’d be listed as a class III sex offender today.
3. The lack of logic.
4. When in doubt slaughter. Infidels deserve to die, see 1 above and as a bonus you get to keep the loot because Allah said so.
5. It is not good to be a woman in Islam.
6. Love is an attribute of Allah rarely uses. I prefer 1 John 4:16 “For God is love.” .
I am convinced that Islam is, as P. Sookhdeo has stated in his book A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Islam, “…one of those powers Paul writes about in Ephesians 6:12.”. One of those “…powers in this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” [NIV].
Bubba Redneck on August 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I’m a little confused, Robert. (Not an unusual circumstance, but any means.) “Enjoin” has two opposite meanings: to direct or impose by an order, and to forbid — “enjoined to” vs. “enjoined from.” Do you mean here that Muhammad forbade the worship of al-Rahman for a while, later absorbing him into Islam as an aspect of Allah, or that Muhammad originally demanded worship of al-Rahman as the lone god and later changed his name to Allah?
irishspy on August 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM
james hooker:
There’s no catch! The delights of Paradise are guaranteed to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Qur’an 9:111)! That’s all you have to do in order to enjoy the fruit, delicious drink, and chaste women, companions of equal age, forever!
Seriously, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is precisely the appeal for at least some radicalized young Muslims. See, for example, this story, and this one, and above all see the sad case of this young man.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM
BL@KBIRD
I don’t know of any other religious text that focuses so much attention on the unbelievers who reject its message, their perversity, and the dire fate that awaits them. As anyone who has kept up with this series knows by now, this is a central preoccupation of the Qur’an (we are almost two-thirds of the way through the book now). Maybe someone can adduce an example of another religious text that is so preoccupied with unbelievers, but I don’t think there is one.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 12:55 PM
forest
I found that rather astonishing myself. Beck actually says, “I have read the Koran and can tell you that I unequivocally believe that Islam is a religion of peace.”
As I wrote here, that’s like saying, “I have read the Koran but I read it with my eyes closed.” Beck is a good guy, but I believe he was seriously overreaching here. He probably hasn’t read the book at all in reality, or at very least he might have phrased his statement very differently — perhaps saying something like that he believes Islam is a religion of peace despite the plain meaning of many passages of the Qur’an. An Islamic movement that rejects Qur’anic literalism, however, is nowhere mainstream at this point, and never has been.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
The unbelievers are going to hell, blah blah blah.
Jimmy the Dhimmi on August 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Bubba Redneck:
Because Allah commands it.
Maybe, but what he did was not unusual in his day. The problem comes in when he is held up as an excellent example of conduct (per Qur’an 33:21) and Muslims today imitate his actions. What would not have raised eyebrows in the 7th century can be a serious offense today.
“Allah’s hand is not chained” (Qur’an 5:64).
They don’t have to be slaughtered if they “pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Yes. Good women are obedient. Disobedient ones should be beaten (Qur’an 4:34).
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM
irishspy:
The latter.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Jimmy the Dhimmi:
When I was first slogging through the Qur’an for a college class, large sections of it did seem to be aptly summed up in that way. But on closer inspection there is a lot of interesting variation — interesting to me, anyway — and I have tried to bring it out here.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Mr. Spencer,
This has come up a few times in the last couple of Suras. Such as white flowing wine that does not cause intoxication, etc. Does Mohammad ever talk about slaves or servents in Paradise? Are there slaves in heaven? What is their heavenly reward, to serve?
I find it interesting, too. Even as I struggle to understand it!
dentalque on August 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Another excellent post, Mr. Spencer.
Maybe a jinn replaced Mohammad for some of the more unique Qur’an verses as punishment for marrying Aisha purely out of desire. But as Glenn Beck says that is a story of pure unadulterated love (I kid, I kid).
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2008 at 3:02 PM
dentalque:
Yes, in a certain sense these chaste women, the hoors, are slaves. After all, they seem to have no other function than to please the male inhabitants of Paradise.
And then there are the boys! “And round about them will serve youths of perpetual freshness: If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls” (Qur’an 76:19). They seem to be slaves also — devoted only to serving the blessed.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Spirit of 1776:
No kidding, however: the novel about Muhammad and Aisha that Random House just killed for fear of the Muslim reaction actually did romanticize their relationship, and in quite lurid terms, also.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I guess I understand how they rationalize it away, but it’s difficult to understand how a religion can have so much influence when it gives away moral authority, by which I mean people’s natural aversion to things, with child brides, etc.
Spirit of 1776 on August 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Any man, prophets included, having sex with a 9 year old is a deviant. I can’t imagine the Saudi women being happy about this practice.
Mojave Mark on August 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Mr. Spencer, many are the passages that promise the male believer in Islam companions in Paradise. What, if anything, is promised for the female believer in Islam, as companions in Paradise? Or will she become one of the companions of appropriate age to the male?
talking_mouse on August 10, 2008 at 7:52 PM
It wasn’t unusual to have sex with nine-year-olds?
I had a discussion with a Muslim, and he claimed it was okay as she’d started her period.
Squiggy on August 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Robert:
(re: al-Rahman)
Interesting! IIRC, there’s some belief that Allah was one of many gods of polytheistic Arabia. So, if Muhammad said first to worship one god, then switched to another, doesn’t this then cause problems for Islamic apologists?
irishspy on August 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the only way that someone could read the Koran and believe Islam to be a “Religion of Peace” is if he purposely shuts the eyes of his mind and keeps them shut by force.
MB4 on August 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Gross. I’d like to think that the glowing portrayal of a 50 year old consummating his marriage with a 9 year old was part of the reason the book got canned. That may be giving the publisher too much credit though.
funky chicken on August 10, 2008 at 9:20 PM
talking mouse:
Pious women and promised Paradise in Qur’an 4:124, but the Qur’an never describes what Paradise is like for women. And no, the hoors seem to be some kind of special inhabitants of Paradise, not earthly women.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Squiggy:
No, it wasn’t all that unusual for young girls to be married off. And it still isn’t in some areas, thanks to Muhammad’s example.
This is a common apologetic argument among Muslims. But there is no mention of this in the early Islamic literature.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 9:57 PM
irishspy:
No, because he didn’t give up the first one. He just said they were one and the same.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM
MB4:
Indeed. On the other hand, in Beck’s defense, I did hear shortly after 9/11 about a man who bought a Qur’an on 9/12, read through it quickly, and pronounced it innocuous and nonviolent. Incredulous when I heard this, I began asking the man who told me — a friend of his — “Well, did he read chapter 9? Chapter 8? 2:190-193? 5:33? 47:4?” Etc. etc.
However, it did occur to me that the book is quite repetitive, and quite opaque in many sections, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that, numbed by the repetitive condemnations of unbelievers, one might glide by the passages that should bring the attentive reader up short.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
funky chicken:
Yes. Judging from the news accounts, which of course may not be accurate, that does seem to be giving the publisher too much credit.
Robert Spencer on August 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I have a Koran that I purchased when I lived in Cairo many years ago in a “parallel” format with English and Arabic. I have been told that many, if not all, translations available in English now are heavily “sanitized”. Could it be that Beck read one of these, with all the “icky” parts snipped out?
TBinSTL on August 11, 2008 at 2:58 AM
All the “classic” English translations of the Qur’an and Sunnahs are at your fingertips at USC. Bookmark it.
Shy Guy on August 11, 2008 at 5:08 AM
TBinSTL:
All the English Qur’ans fail to convey in full the violence of the original. This is not in every case due to an attempt to sanitize the original, although there are such attempts by some translators. (I should note, however, that they don’t “snip out” the “icky” parts — they just obscure them.) Some of the obscurity comes from the difficulty of conveying in English not the meaning of the Arabic words, but their import. For example, jihad fi sabeel Allah, jihad in the path of Allah, always refers in Islamic theology to hot warfare. But in some translations it is rendered as “strive hard in the way of God,” which sounds like an exhortation to piety, not to warfare. Yet strictly speaking the translation is legitimate. Only an honest explanatory footnote — which most English Qur’ans are far from having — would adequately explain something like this.
Robert Spencer on August 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM
There are euphemisms in the Bible, as in Canticles and Ezekiel, where vivid sexual imagery is glossed in the interest of English or American moral sensibilities, but interestingly the English translations of the Bible with which I am familiar translate all the head cracking and evisceration quite unashamedly.
Akzed on August 11, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Akzed:
Yes, but I don’t think that in the case of the Qur’an translations of phrases such as jihad fi sabeel Allah that it is a case of euphemisms being employed. It is a correct translation that simply doesn’t and cannot convey the theological import of the phrase itself.
Not that there aren’t euphemisms and fig leaves, of course. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, for example, in his translation of 4:34, the notorious “wife-beating verse,” renders it “beat her (lightly).” But there is no “(lightly)” in the Arabic. It’s just “beat her.”
Robert Spencer on August 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM
“Lightly” is inferred, as the parable of the wise imam Al-bumin states “wives are like soufflés.”
Shy Guy on August 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM
this is the first one of these I have looked at–simply because I have no interest in the Q’uran (or however you spell it). But I was wondering about the Britney reference. But I still don’t see how it relates. Help?
urbancenturion on August 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Simply reading the Qur’anic Sura 38 verses quoted under the pic.
Shy Guy on August 11, 2008 at 11:56 AM
urbancenturion:
Qur’an.
I posit that it is interesting as an insight into the mindset and beliefs of Islamic terrorists.
But in any case, Britney: I chose the photo as a wry illustration of the Qur’an verse underneath it. “Therein will they recline at ease. Therein can they call for fruit in abundance, and delicious drink; and beside them will be chaste women restraining their glances, companions of equal age.”
That is a vision of Paradise. So I found a picture of a chaste woman of just about the requisite age — Britney — holding a delicious drink in the company of a male companion.
Just a little joke. Very little, from the looks of your post. But it beats yet another illustration of the pains of hell.
Robert Spencer on August 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
McDonald’s chocolate milk shake?
crazy_legs on August 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM
crazy_legs:
Well, those things make me feel miserable enough that they could well be the dark murky drink of Hell.
Robert Spencer on August 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
I’ve never bothered to read any of the other available translations but my Arabic is quite rusty so my ability to “cross verify” is limited now. Your commentaries are of great value because of that. Thank you again.
TBinSTL on August 11, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I just have a couple of comments about the comments so far:
I don’t see how anyone can claim they get anything out of reading the Koran except for being able to say they read it. And the only thing that does for them is it makes them think it gives them some credibility during an argument. With liberals it does give them credibility as long as whatever conclusions they drew from reading it already match what liberals believe about the religion in the first place. (That it’s a peaceful religion, of course.)
I was pretty motivated to read it and I couldn’t get though it. I didn’t even try to read it all at once. Even in small installments it was tough to get through. I couldn’t pronounce a lot of the words. After a while all the Peace be Upon Him’s, and Most Merciful’s, and all the other flowery language gets old real fast.
I jumped over to the Hadiths for a while because they seemed easier to read and more interesting, but after while of that I just got more confused. I don’t know if I read the same Hadith 27 times or 27 different Hadiths all on the same subject. I have no idea how much of any of it I did read.
I don’t believe anybody who says they read the Koran and came away with any kind of understanding of it. I think they just say that so they can claim they read it.
Mr. Spencer’s blogging is the only thing I’ve ever seen anywhere on the internet that really explains it as Muslims themselves understand it.
I don’t know how many years it’s been, but the number of years of research he’s done to do this is impressive.
Jaynie59 on August 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Whoa, I never expected a response from the top man, himself. That makes sense: a little irony.
Don’t take my inattention the wrong way, though. I just assumed that you know your stuff and don’t need any help from me. Frankly, I can’t bring myself to get into this stuff too much, lest I get too irritated to function. Thanks for holding down the (intellectual) fort on the silliness of Islam from an academic prespective.
urbancenturion on August 11, 2008 at 5:39 PM
perspective
/$%^&*#$ fat fingers
urbancenturion on August 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM
urbancenturion:
When I first agreed to write this series here, Michelle Malkin asked that I answer questions in the comments field. I have much enjoyed doing so, even though there have generally not been many comments at all. It has been an opportunity to discuss some of the relevant material here more fully, and to joust with the occasional critic.
Robert Spencer on August 11, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Take it from the top. RS Has been answering our questions for over a year now. He also answers relevant questions at posts on Jihadwatch.com. I do not know when he sleeps! I did not start asking questions until about Sura 13 as hot air was closed and that’s about when they opened it up. Just be sure to challenge your friends with facts or as RS says take the “…opportunity to discuss some of the relevant material here more fully, and to joust with the occasional critic.” As you will find your understanding of Islam grow.
dentalque on August 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM
That’s a bit of an overstatement, methinks. I have most definitely learned a lot about Muslim beliefs, but I’m not sure I would say I understand it any better. It gets more foreign to me the more I learn.
Oh, Robert? I haven’t told you how much I appreciate the job you’re doing. Outstanding work. My lack of understanding Islam has nothing to do with your effort. It has to do with the fact that you are trying to explain color to a blind man.
Squiggy on August 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Growth is relative, I suppose. I know more than I used to because of the Qur’an Blog.
Oh, and thanks again Mr. Spencer.
dentalque on August 11, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Mr. Spencer’s blogging is the only thing I’ve ever seen anywhere on the internet that really explains it as Muslims themselves understand it.
I don’t know how many years it’s been, but the number of years of research he’s done to do this is impressive.
Jaynie59 on August 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM
awake on August 11, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Dear Robert and ALL
the following is from chapter 30 of IDIOTS GUIDE to ISLAM: http://www.youtube.com/ahmadsquran3
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith3834 Narrated by Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib
Allah’s Messenger said, “The martyr is married to seventy-two wives of the maidens with large dark eyes; and is made intercessor for seventy of his relatives.”
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5648 Narrated by AbuSa’id
Allah’s Messenger said, “The lowliest of the inhabitants of Paradise will be he who has eighty thousand servants and seventy-two virgins ….
*** Muhammadan scholars indoctrinate their acolytes to commit slaughter and murder of all UNBELIEVERS in “The Name of Allah” with promises of seventy two virgins based upon the above Ahadith.
The same followers of Muhammad, who when alive and in the physical world, are allowed a maximum of four wives, and a minimum of pleasures since they are prohibited from:
Gambling, Drinking Wine, Singing, Dancing, Painting, wearing Gold or Silk, reciting poetry, playing chess, etc, etc, are allowed in death, seventy two virgins with unlimited Sexual, Carnal and Sensual Pleasures.
Muhammad’s version of Paradise becomes a WHOREHOUSE for those who commit atrocities against all humans who do not believe in ‘Allah and in his messenger Muhammad’.
muhammadsquran on August 12, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Comment pages: