Monday, August 15, 2005

OshO Jokes on Mother Teresa

That old dried-up prune, Mother Teresa, invites that old rotten fruitcake, Pope the Polack, to come and visit her Bleeding Hearts Home for the Dead and Dying in Calcutta. The Polack is thrilled to receive the invitation, so he gets Cardinal Catzass to pack their bags, and they fly off to India. Their first day is spent touring Mother Teresa's Bleeding Hearts Home, blessing all the half-dead Christian converts. The next morning, the two Catholic cowboys from Rome go out into the streets of Calcutta, to wave at the crowds of starving Hindus. But all day long, Pope the Polack has been acting very strangely. Cardinal Catzass is worried about the old Polack and asks him, "Your Holiness, what is the matter?" "Listen," says the old fruitcake, "as soon as we get back to that Bleeding Hearts Home, the first thing I want to do is rip off Mother Teresa's knickers!" "Really?" replies the shocked cardinal. "Why do you want to do that?" "Because," says the pope with a groan, "they are much too tight for me!"

Joke from OshO

Pope the Polack is on a pilgrimage in Calcutta where he makes an official visit to Mother Teresa's orphanage. Mother Teresa is showing him around, and the Polack is bending and kissing everything in sight. Suddenly, as he bends over to kiss Mother Teresa's pride and joy, the new church organ, the pope recoils in terror. There, stretched out across the top of the organ, is a big black condom. Purple with rage, Pope the Polack demands an explanation from Mother Teresa. "Well," says Mother Teresa, "one of my orphans found it in a package on the street, and when I read the label it said: `Place on organ and feel secure.'"

Joke from OshO

The average mental age of humanity is only thirteen years. This you call evolution? A man is ninety years old, and he has the mind of a thirteen year old. It is because of this retardedness that he believes all kinds of idiotic beliefs, dogmas, religions. He never questions, never inquires, never explores. He does not have consciousness enough to go on a quest for truth. And of course the politicians don't want him to evolve. The priests don't want him to evolve, because man's evolution is their death. An evolved man, a conscious man, has no need of political leaders to tell him what is right and what is wrong. He does not require any pope, any Mother Teresa, any Ayatollah Khomeini, any Shankaracharya. In fact, these people will seem to him retarded. So all the religions and all the political parties of the world are conspiring against humanity. To keep man enslaved, the best way is that he remains a helpless child, always in search of a father figure. In politics he finds father figures. In religion he finds father figures. It is not a coincidence that Christian priests are called fathers.

OshO Joke on Mother Teresa

If people use birth control methods, then from where is Mother Teresa going to find orphans? Her whole business will be finished. And these orphans are being converted into Catholics, so the pope is in absolute support. You give Nobel Prizes to these people who need to be sentenced to prison for their whole life! They are the cause of poverty in the world, they are the cause of the orphans in the world. And they are still free, preaching the same old nonsense. They go on saying God gives children. On what authority do they know it? Have they got any proof, any evidence that God gives children to people? And if God gives children to people, then their God must be absolutely insane. Seeing this earth overpopulated, thousands of people dying, he goes on giving children? There is no God. It is the greatest lie invented by the religions to exploit humanity. And I am surprised.... Mother Teresa has been in correspondence with me. Because I condemned her so much in India, she finally had to write a letter to me in which she said, "It is out of my compassion that I am serving the orphans." I replied to her, "Your compassion is costing too much. You can be compassionate to something else, but please stop this compassion to orphans, and stop talking this nonsense that God gives children." And I wrote to her, "God is omnipotent, all powerful. If he really wants to give children, then he can do anything. What about the Pill? Can't God remove the Pill? God could part the ocean for Moses to move with all his followers; can't he make a passage in the condom? He can part the ocean, he cannot part the condom? So leave it to him. If he wants -- he is all-powerful, all-knowing, present everywhere -- he will do whatsoever he wants to do. Why are you bothering and teaching people against birth control methods?" Her next letter came without any answer to what I had written. She simply wrote, "I will pray to God to forgive you." I had to write to her again: "I have not given you the authority to pray on my behalf. I can sue you in the court. Who are you to pray on my behalf to a God who does not exist? You are interfering with my freedom. Stop praying, at least for me! I do not want anybody's prayer, anybody's forgiveness; I am not committing any sin. Pray for yourself." And that was the end of the correspondence.

Osho on Mother Teresa

Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Prize for her charitable work in India, which Osho criticizes. At the end of December 1980, Mother Teresa writes to Osho.

The politicians and the priests have always been in deep conspiracy, they have divided man. The politician rules the outside and the priest rules the inside: the politician the exterior and the priest the interior. They are joined in a deep conspiracy against humanity—they may not even be aware of what they are doing. I don't suspect their intentions; they may be absolutely unconscious.Just the other day I received a letter from Mother Teresa. I have no intention of saying anything against her sincerity; whatsoever she wrote in the letter is sincere, but it is unconscious. She is not aware of what she is writing; it is mechanical, it is robot-like. She says, 'I have just received a cutting of your speech. I feel very sorry for you that you could speak as you did. Reference: the Nobel Prize. For the adjectives you add to my name I forgive you with great love.'

She is feeling very sorry for me…I enjoyed the letter! She has not even understood the adjectives that I have used about her. But she is not aware, otherwise she would have felt sorry for herself.

The adjectives that I have used—she has sent the cutting also with the letter—the first is 'deceiver', then 'charlatan' and 'hypocrite'….

Now I have criticized her and said that the Nobel Prize should not have been given to her, and she feels offended by it. She says in her letter, 'Reference: the Nobel Prize.'
This man Nobel was one of the greatest criminals possible in the world. the First World War was fought with his weapons; he was the greatest manufacturer of weapons….
Mother Teresa could not refuse the Nobel Prize. The same desire to be admired, the same desire to be respectable in the world—and the Nobel Prize brings you the greatest respect. She accepted the prize….

That's why I have called the people like Mother Teresa 'deceivers'. They are not deceivers knowingly, certainly, not intentionally, but that does not matter; the outcome, the end result is very clear. Their purpose is to function in this society like a lubricant so that the wheels of the society, the wheels of exploitation, oppression can go on moving smoothly. These people are lubricants! They are deceiving others and they are deceiving themselves.

And I call them 'charlatans' because a really religious person, a man like Jesus…Can you conceive of Jesus getting the Nobel Prize? Impossible! Can you conceive of Socrates getting the Nobel Prize or Al-Hillaj Mansoor getting the Nobel Prize? If Jesus cannot get the Nobel Prize and Socrates cannot get the Nobel Prize—and these are the true religious people, the awakened ones—then who is Mother Teresa?…

The really religious person is rebellious; the society condemns him. Jesus is condemned as a criminal and Mother Teresa is respected as a saint. There is something to be pondered over: if Mother Teresa is right then Jesus is a criminal, and if Jesus is right then Mother Teresa is just a charlatan and nothing else. Charlatans are always praised by the society because they are helpful—helpful to this society, to this status quo.

Whatsoever adjectives I have used I have used very knowingly. I never use a single word without consideration. And I have used the word 'hypocrites'. These people are hypocrites because their basic life style is split: on the surface one thing, inside something else.
She writes: 'The Protestant family was refused the child not because they are Protestant but because at that time we did not have a child that we could give them.'

Now, the Nobel Prize is given to her for helping thousands of orphans and there are thousands of orphans in the homes she runs. Suddenly she ran out of orphans? And in India can you ever run out of orphans? Indians go on creating as many orphans as you want, in fact more than you want!

And the Protestant family which has been refused was not refused immediately. If there was no orphan available, if all the orphans had been disposed of, then what is Mother Teresa doing with seven hundred nuns? What is their work? Seven hundred nuns…then whom are they mothering? Not a single orphan—strange!—and that too in Calcutta! You can find orphans anywhere on the road—you find children in the dustbins. They could have just looked outside the place and they would have found many children. You can just go outside the ashram and you can get orphans. They will come themselves, you need not find them!

Suddenly they ran out of orphans…And if the family had been refused immediately it would have been a totally different matter. But the family was not refused immediately; they were told, 'Yes, you can get an orphan. Fill in the form.' So the form was filled in. Till they came to the point where they had to state their religion, up to that moment, there were orphans, but when they filled in the form and wrote 'We belong to the Protestant Church,' immediately they ran out of orphans!

And this reason was not given to the Protestant family itself. Now, this is hypocrisy! This is deception! This is ugly! The reason given to the family itself was that because these children…because the children were there, so how could she say, 'We don't have any orphans'? They are always on exhibition!She has invited me also: 'You can come any time and you are welcome to visit our place and see our orphans and our work.' They are constantly on exhibition!In fact, those Protestants had already chosen the orphan, the child that they wanted to adopt, so she could not say to those people, 'It is because there are no more orphans. We are sorry.'
She said to them, "These orphans are being raised according to the Roman Catholic Church and it will be bad for their psychological growth because it will be such a disruption. Now, giving them to you will make them a little disturbed and it will not be good for them. That's why we cannot give the child to you, because you are Protestant."

Exactly that was the reason given to them. And they are not stupid people. The husband is a professor in a European university—he was shocked, the wife was shocked. They had come from so far away just to adopt a child, and they were refused because they are Protestants. Had they written 'Catholic' they would have been given the child immediately.

And one thing to be understood: these children are basically Hindu. If Mother Teresa is so concerned about their psychological welfare then they should be brought up according to the Hindu religion, but they are brought up according to the Catholic Church. And then to give them to Protestants, who are not different at all from Catholics…What is the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant? Just a few stupid things!…

Just a few days ago there was a bill in the Indian Parliament Freedom of Religion. The purpose of the bill was that nobody should be allowed to convert anybody to another religion: unless somebody chooses it out of his own free will no conversion should be allowed. And Mother Teresa was the first one to oppose it. In her whole life she has never opposed anything; this was the first time, and maybe the last. She opposed it. She wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and there was a heated controversy between her and the Prime Minister: 'The bill should not be passed because it goes against our whole work. We are determined to save people, and people can be saved only if they become Roman Catholics.' They created so much uproar all over the country—and the politicians are always concerned about votes, they cannot lose the Christian votes—so the bill was dropped, simply dropped….

If Mother Teresa is really honest and believes that converting a person disturbs his psychic structure, then she should be against conversion unless a person chooses it by himself.
For example, you have come to me, I have not gone to you. I don't even go outside the door….
I have not gone to anybody, you have come to me. And I am not converting you to any religion either. I am not creating any ideology here, I am not giving you any catechism, any doctrine. I am simply helping you to be silent. Now, silence is neither Christian or Hindu nor Mohammedan; silence is silence. I am teaching you loving. Now, love is neither Christian nor Hindu nor Mohammedan. I am teaching you to be aware. Now, awareness is simply awareness; it belongs to nobody. And I call this true religiousness.

To me Mother Teresa and people like her are hypocrites: saying one thing but doing something else behind a beautiful facade. It is the whole game of politics—the politics of numbers.
And she says, 'For the adjectives you add to my name I forgive you with great love.' First of all, love need not forgive because in the first place it is not angered. To forgive somebody first you have to be angry; that is a prerequisite.I don't forgive Mother Teresa at all, because I am not angry at all. Why should I forgive her? She must have been angry. This is why I want you to start meditating on these things. It is said that Buddha never forgave anybody for the simple reason that he was never angry. How can you forgive without anger? It is impossible. She must have been angry. This is what I call unconsciousness: she is not aware of what she is writing,…she is not aware of what I am going to do with her letter!

She says, 'I forgive you with great love'—as if there is small love and great love, and things like that. Love is simply love; It cannot be great, it cannot be small. Do you think love is a quantitative thing?—one kilo of love, two kilos of love. How many kilos of love makes it great? Or are tons needed?

Love is not a quantity at all, it is a quality. And quality is immeasurable: it is neither small nor great. Whenever somebody says to you, 'I love you very greatly,' beware! Love is just love; it cannot be less than that, it cannot be more than that. There is no question of less and more.
And what crime have I committed that she is forgiving me for? Just old Catholic stupidity—they go on forgiving! I have not confessed any sin, so why should she forgive me?

I stick to all the adjectives, and I will add a few more: that she is stupid, mediocre, idiotic! And if anybody needs to be forgiven it is she, not I, because she is committing a great sin. She is saying in this letter, 'I am fighting through adoption the sin of abortion.' Abortion is not a sin; in this overpopulated world abortion is a virtue. And if abortion is a sin then the Polack Pope and Mother Teresa and company are responsible for it because they are against contraceptives, they are against birth control methods, they are against the pill. These are the people who are the cause of all the abortions; they are responsible. To me they are great criminals!
In this overpopulated world where people are hungry and starving to be against the pill is just unforgivable! The pill is one of the most significant contributions of modern science to humanity—it can make the earth a paradise….

I would like to destroy poverty, I don't want to serve poor people. Enough is enough! For ten thousand years fools have been serving poor people; it has not changed anything. But now we have enough technology to destroy poverty completely.

So if anybody has to be forgiven it is these people. It is the Pope, Mother Teresa, etcetera, who have to be forgiven. They are criminals, but their crime is such that you will need great intelligence to understand it.

And see the egoistic 'holier than thou' attitude. 'I forgive you,' she says. 'I feel sorry for you,' she says. And she asks, 'May God's blessings be with you and fill your heart with his love.' Just bullshit!

I don't believe in any God as a person, so there is no God as a person who can bless me or anybody else. God is only a realization, God is not somebody to be encountered. It is your own purified consciousness. And why should God bless me? I can bless all your gods! Why should I ask for anybody's blessing? I am blissful—there is no need! And I don't believe that there is any God. I have looked in every nook and corner and he does not exist! It is only in ignorant people's minds that God has existence. I am not an atheist, remember, but I am not a theist either.
God is not a person to me but a presence, and the presence is felt when you reach to the climax of your meditativeness. You suddenly feel a godliness overflowing the whole existence. There is no God, but there is godliness.I love the statement of H. G. Wells about Gautam the Buddha. He has said that Gautam the Buddha is the most godless person yet the most godly too. You can say the same thing about me: I am the most godless person you can find, but I know godliness.
Godliness is like a fragrance, an experience of immense joy, of utter freedom. You cannot pray to godliness, you cannot make an image of godliness, you cannot say, 'May God's blessings be with you'—and that too with a condition: 'May God's blessings be with you during 1981.' Such misers! And what about 1982? Great courage! Great sharing! Such generosity!

'…and fill your heart with his love.' My heart is full with love! There is no space for anybody else's love in it. And why should my heart be filled with anybody else's love? A borrowed love is not love at all. The heart has its own fragrance.But this type of nonsense is thought to be very religious. She is writing with this desire that I will see how religious she is, and all that I can see is simply that she is an ordinary, foolish person, just the same as you can find anywhere among the mediocre people.

I have been calling her Mother Teresa, but I think I should stop calling her Mother Teresa because I am not very gentlemanly but I have to respond adequately. She calls me Dear Mr Rajneesh, so from now onwards I will call her Dear Miss Teresa—just to be gentlemanly, mannerly!

The ego can come in from the back door. Don't try to throw it out. I have received a newscutting from Calcutta. The reporter says that he went to Mother Teresa with a cutting from a newspaper about my statement that she is idiotic. She became so mad she tore the cutting and threw it away. And she was so angry that she was not even willing to make any comment. But she has made the comment, tearing the newspaper cutting.

And the reporter said, "I was puzzled. I asked that, 'the cutting belonged to me. I had just come to show it to you and to know your comment?'"

And these people think they are religious people. In fact, by tearing the cutting she simply proved what I have said was right: she is idiotic—this is idiotic. I receive so many "compliments"—in inverted commas—from all over the world that if I start tearing them it will be enough exercise for me—and I hate exercise!

Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa(Interview) by Matt Cherry

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number 4.

Below, Matt Cherry, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, interviews Christopher Hitchens about his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (Verso, 1995) and his television program, which strongly criticized Mother Teresa. The interview recapitulates the most devastating critiques of Mother Teresa ever made. It also gives a very telling account by a leading journalist into the U.S. media's great reluctance to criticize religion and religious leaders.

As Free Inquiry was going to press, we heard that Mother Teresa was suffering from heart trouble and malaria and there was concern about her chances of survival. It was, therefore, suggested to the editors that it would be inappropriate to print an interview that contains criticism of Mother Teresa's work and influence. However, in view of the media's general failure to investigate the work of Mother Teresa or to publish critical comments about her, the editors felt it important to proceed with the publication of this revealing interview.

Christopher Hitchens is "Critic at Large" for Vanity Fair, writes the Minority Report column for The Nation, and is a frequent guest on current affairs and commentary television programs. He has written numerous books on international current affairs, including Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies.

—— EDS.

Free Inquiry: According to polls, Mother Teresa is the most respected woman in the world. Her name is a by-word for selfless dedication in the service of humanity. So why are you picking on this sainted old woman?

Christopher Hitchens: Partly because that impression is so widespread. But also because the sheer fact that this is considered unquestionable is a sign of what we are up against, namely the problem of credulity. One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim.

FI: You have to go to the Book of Mormon?

HITCHENS: Yes, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, who descended from the Millerites. I can see that Scientology now enjoys charitable status as a religion, which I think is a real triumph. I can't get over that. You can set some idea of what it would have been like to live in third-century Nicea when Christianity was being hammered together - an experience I am very glad I did not have. Religious diversity is confused with pluralism. Because of multi-culturalism and what is called "political correctness," religion has a certain protection that it couldn't expect to have if it was a state-sponsored racket like the Church of England.

FI: A lot of people who aren't religious think religion should still be beyond criticism.

HITCHENS: Certainly, because it's people's deepest and dearest beliefs, and because they are communities as well as congregations. And I suppose that in the minds of some people the feeling is "Well, you never know, it may be true and then I will go to Hell." A lot of people every now and then are visited by fear. It seems that as animals we are so constituted. At least we can know that about ourselves, but it is such a waste of the knowledge to interpret in any other way. On the other hand, I'm also impressed by the number of people who manage to get by - often without any help or support - not believing.

FI: The great thing about humanism is that so many people reach the position independently, because it is not about teachers and doctrines. You just end up a humanist by following your own questions.

HITCHENS: That's true. And it doesn't have any element of wishful-thinking in it, which is another advantage. Though it's the reason why I think it will always be hated but never eradicated.

FI: Look at the situation in Western Europe: in Holland about 55 percent say they are humanist or non-religious; and in Britain it's up to about 30 percent and among teenagers it's 50 percent. So there's an enormous movement in Western Europe towards secularism and humanism. Yet in America it seems to be getting just more and more religious. Which, considering the convergence of culture in other areas, seems quite anomalous. Sociologists are just beginning to address this issue but haven't done so properly yet.

Islam in India

Taken from

Islam What Islam needs is an introspective leadership, a leadership which is prepared to have a fresh look at its traditional doctrines and approach. It must give up its religious arrogance and its fundamentalism, its basic categories of believers and infidels, its imperialist theories of Zimmis and Jazia, its belief that it has appeared with a divine mission to replace all other religions and modes of worship.

- Ram Swarup (Indian Express, 2.1.91)

Fourteen hundred years ago, a new faith burst out of the Arabian deserts and exploded like forked lightning onto three continents. Under the oasis green banner of the Prophet, the warriors of Islam converted whole civilizations to their holy book, their way of life and their world view. Today a reconstructed idea of Islam is spreading at what often appears to be the same speed over much the same territory. From the North African coast to the steppes of Central Asia, the Prophet’s precepts interpreted as a code of earthly behaviour are galvanizing Muslim societies with hope for renewal and fear of upheaval. The whole world is watching and wondering about the impact of this tectonic shift, as represented by the Islamic Jehad.

Terrorism, intolerance and revolution for export – the revival movement’s three scourges, have become a matter of grave concern to liberal societies all over the world. Islamic thought today is a closed system that admits no analysis, no debate of what are today common interpretations of the revealed word. The Muslim talent for riot, rape, murder, loot and arson is a historical fact. It is a tragic heirloom of Muslim history. No one can escape it.

Since August 15, 1947, the Muslims of India have been causing communal riots at regular intervals, disrupting the country's secular and peaceful life. They have been successful in keeping up the terrific communal tension which was a sad and tragic feature of Indian politics before partition and independence. The Muslim masses, with their inherent background of racial hatred and suspicion, have been misguided by their leadership and media and led to believe that they and their religion are not secure in India. Right from black flag demonstrations and processions of protest shouting slogans like "Hindustan Murdabad", "Pakistan Zindabad"; pasting the towns with abusive and inflammatory posters in Urdu exciting the Muslim masses to riot and murder; observing the Independence Day as a mourning day; insulting India's national flag and hoisting Pakistan's flag on public buildings on Independence Day; celebrating when India suffers defeat at the hands of Pakistan in a cricket or hockey match; desecrating Hindu shrines and attacking Hindu processions to joining the ISI in plotting and executing bomb blasts killing hundreds of innocent Indians, the Indian Muslims have been engaged in anti-social and anti-national activities without the least necessity or provocation from anyone.

The question, however, is : how long are the Muslims going to hold our secular state to ransom with their seasonal riots and murders over trifling issues? In granting Pakistan, we have already paid a terrific price. After granting Pakistan, Muslim blackmail ought to have ended and we should have been left in peace to work out our destiny as a secular nation with the help of our Muslim brothers. Seeing that the Muslims are happier in India than in Pakistan, why do our Muslims want to destroy our peace and secularity and ruin our nation?

If the Muslims won't answer this question, the State must do so because no one can expect a population of 800 million Hindus to be indifferent. While our peaceful Muslim citizens must get all the benefits of a secular democratic state, nothing less and nothing more than anyone else, we must also erect a few fences around the communal goondas and stop them in time from sabotaging our nation.

Nothing, be it a religion or a political ideology, will survive long if it is charged with fanaticism and thrust upon the people with murder and violence. Fascism, imperialism, Hitlerism and Communism died ignoble deaths. And so will fanatic Islam.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Taken from

We present herewith ten commandments of Islam which have been compiled by a responsible scholar, Prof.G.C.Asnani on the basis of authoritative translations of Quran.
Ten commandments of the Holy Quran :

There is one and only one God (Allah); Mohammed (The Holy Prophet) is the last Messenger of Allah, the last and the best amongst Allah's Messengers. Whatever was said by the Holy Prophet Mohammed through the Holy Quran is the Final word of God, Islam, superseding the word of all earlier Prophets; whatever Prophet Mohammed did is an illustration for the human race to see the command of God in practice and in action.

Quran provides perfect guidance for the whole human race for all problems of life, for all times to come. If you know Holy Quran, you do not have to know anything else on this earth. Do not deviate from the guidance given by God through the Holy Quran and through the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammed.

It is incumbent on the followers of Holy Prophet Mohammed not only to practice Islam in their daily life, but also to spread it out and to conquer other lands for Islam, to ensure that the whole human race accepts the holy religion of Islam. Hold on fast to the land where Islam prevails; exert yourself to the utmost, to spread out and conquer more and more lands for Islam; there is to be no relaxation in this effort.

In new places where people do not immediately accept Islam as their religion, approach them through the following three processes :-

Persuasion, presenting Islam as Message of Peace, Love and Justice. Terrorism, to frighten and confuse the minds of non-Muslims completely. Military war, followed by widespread slaughter, plunder and forced conversion. If forced conversion is not immediately possible, keep the non-Muslims as Dhimmis - second class citizens, who shall not renovate old places of worship or construct new places for their worship; Dhimmis shall bow down before Muslims and humbly pay Jaziya tax for permission to follow their earlier religion; these disabilities for non-Muslims will be lifted only when they convert to Islam.

These three processes may be followed by leaders of Islam in whichever sequence they consider appropriate under prevailing circumstances. These three processes are the components of the "Holy War" (Jihad).

Jihad is a compulsory religious duty for every Muslim, irrespective of age, sex or profession - civilian or military. This Jihad is the path prescribed by Allah. All Muslims everywhere in the world have the divine right to practice their religion, no one on this Earth has any legitimate right to oppose Muslims in the observance of their religion. Any opposition from non-Muslims has to be firmly resisted, by war if necessary; non-Muslims shall surely get defeated in war against the Muslims, because it will be a war against Allah. If circumstances demand, temporarily withdraw, but come back to fight with greater force. Those believers who survive this Holy War shall share and enjoy all property of the defeated ones including their women folk. Those believers who die in this Holy War shall enjoy infinite pleasures of food and drink, physical comfort and sex with handsome maidens (hoories) and even handsome boys in Heaven, far more enjoyment than they could have had while living on this earth. If they kill non-believers in this Holy War, they become the heroes of war (Ghazis); if they get killed, they become the martyrs of Islam, to enjoy the pleasures of paradise for all time to come.
Let not the Believers take Non-Believers for their friends. Take not Christians, Jews or idolaters as your friends; they will deceive the Believers in due course of time. The Christians claim that God has a son; this is not correct; it is not proper to say that God has chosen a son.
Non-Muslims shall be exposed to fire. As often as their skins are consumed, we shall exchange them for fresh skins so that they may taste the torment. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve; they shall be crucified or killed or have their hands or feet on alternate sides cut off, or be expelled out of the land. Such will be the deprivation for disbelievers in this life; and after death also they will suffer awful doom forever. They will wish to come out from the fire, but they will not be allowed to come out of it.

In your warfare, Oh Believers, spring a surprise on the un-Believers; lay ambush for them and strike them while they are in sleep or at play. When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. You may temporarily retreat, but come back and attack with greater force.

When we attacked a township of un-Believers, we first offered them conversion into Islam. When they did not agree, and chose to fight a war, then we destroyed the whole community and township utterly; when they cried out for help or escape, there was no longer time for escape. We ordered widespread slaughter in the conquered territories.

You Believers, amongst yourselves you are all kith and kin, just one community, transcending all man-made national barriers; you are a nation by yourself, recognizing only the unity of Islam and the authority of Allah, His Prophet and the Holy Quran. If there is an attack on any one of you, it is an attack on all of you; you join together and fight together. Do not fight amongst yourselves; help one another, through charity when necessary. Perform Holy Pilgrimage (Haj) to Holy Mecca at least once in your lifetime; also observe the prescribed fasting during the Holy Month of Ramzan. Offer prayers five times a day; on Fridays, assemble together and offer community prayers.

Note : The above commandments are based on the following three independent translations of the Holy Quran. All the three translations say the same thing, almost identical, both in letter and spirit.

By E.H.Palmer; Clarendon Press, 1880, Edited by Prof. Max Muller (Sacred Books of the East).
By Arthur J.Arberry; Oxford University Press (The World's Classics), ISBN 0-19-2816-4, (1982), 674 pp.

By M.Pickthall; published by Nasrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, (1982), 1214, Kalan Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002. The publisher is a well-known Islamic Publication Centre in India. The book has original Arabic text on right-hand-side and English translation on left-hand-side of each page.

We would also like to draw attention to three other authoritative studies on Islam - "Islam-The Arab Imperialism", "Eternity" and "Faith and Deception" by Anwar Shaikh, published by the Principality Publishers, Cardiff, U.K.

Without disowning the profuse quotations from "Quran" and declaring that these views have no place in Islam, to claim that Islam is a tolerant and liberal religion will be like trying to paint a crow white to make it look like a dove.

All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad—holy war against all non-Muslims—does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi, "Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them." World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."
Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.