India Forum Archives
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
  Islamism: ideology, problems and reformation -2
Posted by: Viren Jul 20 2004, 01:01 PM
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/22501.asp Islam's moderate voice must counter that of extremists
Posted by: Viren Jul 20 2004, 01:03 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0704/mason_2004_07_07.php3?printer_friendly - Jewish world review
Posted by: Viren Jul 21 2004, 07:20 AM
In Norway http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece
Posted by: Viren Jul 22 2004, 08:04 AM
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&prgDate=current to "Historical Insight into the Sudan Crisis" about this group called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed The attrocities by arab muslims towards the black african muslims is not much different than what read about Pakistan.
Posted by: Kaushal Jul 22 2004, 09:28 AM
QUOTE
I've noticed some people on these boards believe that India and Israel share a common enemy: Islam. I want to inform you people that Muslims are not one community like the Jews are.
Indians (and I mean Hindus in particular) do not have anything against Islam anymore than they have against anyother religion such as Communism or shamanism. But too many crimes have been committed in India specifically invoking Islam. Historically such crimes have been praised by Muslim historians (we derive most our knowledge of Muslim rule in India from muslim historians). There is as yet no remorse on the part of the Muslim community by and large that such crimes were committed and not only that a fair number of Indian Muslims are proud that thier Sultans committed such crimes. Contrast this with the behavior of the parsees. They did not endeavor to take over any piece of land, they came in peace and lived in peace and prospered, so much so that the largest Parsee community in the world is in India and not in Iran, the land of their birth, from where they have been driven out. Many Hindus believe it is high time that there was extensive reform of Islam to purge it of its jihadi proclivities. This is no longer an internal matter for islam. It deeply affects the relatonship between the 2 communities in India.
QUOTE
Muslims from India have a totally different mentality than Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, where the former's perceptions are shaped by his Indian heritage. I know this sounds rather silly but I'll say it anyhow since some people here definately need to hear it:
I am glad to hear you express something i have been saying for some time, but you are the first Indian Muslim (that i know) that has done so. The perception of Hindus generally is that Muslims do not recognize they have an Indian heritage. IOW, the higher the proportion of Arab/Turkish and persian blood the higher their caste in the Muslim heirarchy. Even if they recognize they have an Indian heritage they have done their best to erase such an Identity , adopting names from a far away culture to distinguish themselves from the people they conquered. I hardly know any Muslims who have a native Indic name and that tells me a lot about their identification with their Indian heritage. Even today the Indian Muslim seeks to distance himself from the culture and ethos of the land by seeking a separate identity as a 'Minority', unlike the Parsees and a myriad other communities in India. These are serious matters that need to be discussed and i commmend you for bringing them up.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 22 2004, 12:26 PM
Kaushal:
QUOTE
but would ring more true if you showed equal or greater concern for the 400,000 indians in the kashmir Valley and the Hindu who has been wiped out in apakistan and is being wiped out in Bangladesh
I do feel sympathy for them. Your indirect accusation was totally uncalled for.
QUOTE
On the contrary Israel has been one of the main countries that has always been helpful to india right from the beginning in 1950,
Let me remind you of an old proverb "Beware the gifts of a thief" As far as the bombing of the Buddist statues goes, let me ask you one thing. How many Hindus condemned the destruction of the Babri Mosque? I know that the site has great sigificance to Hindus, and I don't want to debate that. But isn't it hypocrital to condemn the Taliban for blowing up religious structures for religious reasons while Hindus do the very same thing in India? No offence to any of you, but that's the way I see it. To be perfectly frank, the Babri Mosque incident failed to incite me agaisnt Hindus.
QUOTE
Thisis not to say that there no thoughtful Muslims in India who can think for themselves, but for the most part they remain so petrified with fear of the Mullahs that they dare not speak up and express their opinion.
I agree with you here. THe Mullahs and Islamic leaders on the whole need to be reformed.
QUOTE
but for the most part almost every terrorist in the world today is a Muslim.
And you know this how...? Just because Islamic terror gets maximum media coverage does not mean that 90% of Global terrorists are Muslims. THere are many terrorist groups around the world such as ETA (Basque movement in SPain), the Tamil Tigers (seem Hindu to me), and the IRA in Ireland. You need to tally up all their members, get an actual figure and them tally up the total number of muslim terrorists and take a percentage to conclude what you have already concluded in advance. You claim that most global terrorists are Muslim is nothing but a personal speculation, and by trying to pass of an unproven assumption as fact you are commiting a reasoning error which logicians call "Begging the Question."(see Morris, "With Good reason") Hence that part of your argument is illogical.
QUOTE
but these 'nutcases' are well financed by rich Saudi Arabia
That's a myth cooked up by Neo conservative think tanks in the US. I had an article refuting that silly claim, but unfortunately I can't find it sad.gif
QUOTE
and militarily powerful Pakistan.
I'll agree with you here, agar in log nahi karenge to aur kawn karega? But let me also remind you about how India screwed Pakistan in the 70s by funding anti Paki Bangladeshi guerrelas. To India, those bangladeshis were freedom fighters, but to the Pakis, they were terrorists. Here's another proverb for you "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I'm just trying to be balanced here. You are accusing Pakistan of a crime that our nation too is guilty of. Lets not be sheep like the Americans and ignore the crimes of our own government. Today the Pakis are using rebels millitants to take Kashmir away from us. We are effectively getting a dose of our own medicine. YOu see how subjective the word "terrorist" is? It's a double edged sword, use it carefully. India has supported the Tamil Tigers in the 80s and early 90s, does this make India a terrorist nation? I think you already know of the atrocities commited by the Tigers. If you apologise for the Tamil Tigers and I call you a "terrorist supporter" how would you feel? That's how I feel when people call me a "terrorist supporter" when I speak for the Palestinians. Now do you understand my anguish???
QUOTE
Furthermore in every instance , the jihadi believes that he is doing what he is doing (mostly murder of children and women) because it is sanctioned by their holy texts and primariy by the Koran.
Actually many of these Jihadis do not have direct access to QUranic translations and EXOGESIS (equlally important to get a balanced message from the Quran). They are simply told (by their batty leaders) that killing others is the way, and they blindly follow.
QUOTE
If these people really are believed to be not representative of islam then how do you explain the widespread adulation for our dear old osama bin laden .
I cannot because your statement is blatantly false (no offence again). I've been around Muslim circles all my life so I'd know better than you. I personally have not met a Muslim that condones Osama Bin Loser.
QUOTE
Remember they burned Buses in Bangalore in support of the actions of Osama against the Americans .
And this is your proof that all the ethnically diverse Muslims around the world support Osama? You are making an assumption of a large global population based on an inssuficient sample hence you are guilty of commiting the reasoning error which logicians call "THe fallacy of hasty generalisation." (Morris)
QUOTE
These are strange friends indeed that treat indians like dirt in their country
True, that also includes INDIAN MUSLIMS, and I know this from personal experiance. So this isn't just anti Hindu prejudice. Furthurmore I was reffering to Arab govts, my apologies, I should have specified that.
QUOTE
and who invariably side with pakistan regardless of the large scale massacres that the Pakis practiced in B'Desh prior to its indeependence.
Again you are so wrong. I've lived in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) for 10 years and some of their state controlled newspapers (Gulf news for one) are blatantly pro Indian. Pakis write letters of complaint to the editor quite frequently tongue.gif tongue.gif
QUOTE
No i have yet to meet a Saudi who is respectful and courteous towards Indians in general.
That makes two of us. Saudi Arabia sucks, and appart from religious pilgrimages I'd like to stay away from that place. However, I know 2 Brahmin girls who actually LIKE living there and do not want to leave. The world truly is shades of Grey.
QUOTE
There is as yet no remorse on the part of the Muslim community by and large that such crimes were committed and not only that a fair number of Indian Muslims are proud that thier Sultans committed such crimes.
The Brits dont show any remorse for conquering India, and niether do the other Europeans who conquered the world. DOes this mean Christianity is evil? The Jews don't show remorse when they ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indegenous Cannaite and Philistine populations 2000 years ago, infact, the Torah glorifies such massacres, just read the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. I've studied the Bible at my Uni here in Canada smile.gif Why isn't there any media coverage of how "violent" Judiasm is? Have you read the Talmud? It teaches that Jesus boils in hell. WHy doesn't the media report how intellerant Judiasm is? I've nothing against the Jews nor Judiasm (I took courses in the bible at my Uni) but I am upset about peoples hypocrisy at reserving such labels exclusively for Islam. But forget about that for now, that's my problem.
QUOTE
I am glad to hear you express something i have been saying for some time, but you are the first Indian Muslim (that i know) that has done so. The perception of Hindus generally is that Muslims do not recognize they have an Indian heritage.
Many Muslims do actually, but are afraid to express such opinions in Public becasue of religious leaders, plus Hindutva has alienated Muslims and hence if a Muslim says such a thing, he is regarded with suspicion. I am proud of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat. Arabatta and BrahmaGupta are my ancestors as much as they are yours. I don't believe in Hindu scripture personally, but I am proud of it becasue it is evidence of India's great civillization that rivals that of Ancient Greece.
QUOTE
Even today the Indian Muslim seeks to distance himself from the culture and ethos of the land by seeking a separate identity as a 'Minority', unlike the Parsees and a myriad other communities in India.
ah ha ha, this is a very complicated issue. Tensions between Hindus and Muslims are the result of the British policy of "Divide and Conquer." The object of this policy was to create tensions between 2 major groups in a nation so as to weaken nationalistic movements that threatened the hegmony of the European power. In other words, if the Brits could turn Hindus agaisnt Muslims, then there would be no united India, and thus the Brits could stay. THe only reason why the Brits left India was because world war 2 left them with virtually no army to control India (ironic that Hitler indirectly aided Indian independace). Do you remember Rwanda? If you don't I'll briefly sumurise their history for you a little. Rwanda is an African country close to SOuth Africa. They were a colony of Belgium. Belgium applied divide and conquer on the local population there and turned the majority Hotus against the minority Tutsis. After Bellgium left and when Rwanda got its independance, there was a genocide where the Hutus killed more than 800,000 Tutsis. Hutus agaisnt Tutsis, Hindus against Muslims. See the parralell? It is for this reason why many Muslims distance themselves from their Indian heritage, or atleast try to do, but that trend is changing. European tampering. My final point. Although many Indian muslims claim to distance themselves from their heritage, let me assure you that THEY ARE A PRODUCT of their Hindu heritage. The institution of marriage is at the heart of every culture do you agree? Lets examine the Indian Muslim's perceptions of marriage and compare it with a Saudis. IN Saudi Arabia, most men take on more than one wife. Islam allows this, but stresses equlity and justice towards the wives (see Quran chapter 4). In India however, 90% of Muslim men are monogomous. Why? Becasue Indian Muslims are Ex Hindus. They may have changed their religion, but their heritage is always with them, even if they ignore it. In Saudi Arabia, most men would marry a widow or a divorcee without hesitation. In India, a land in which widows were traditionally burned to death, even the Muslims refuse to marry widows. See the Hindu connection? Hindutva propoganda is very damaging. The Brits may have used divide and conquer, but when Indian leaders themselved use it to gain extra votes, western Social scientists call it "The Irrelevant state." I urge Hindus and Muslims alike not to let the Hindutva people turn India into an Irrelevant state. I've also taken a course in Social science. Hindu and Muslims have traditionally lived in peace and harmony, contrary to Hindutva propoganda. Even Anti Muslim New York times columnist Thomas Friedman acknoledged this peacefull Hindu Muslim co existance. Read his article here if you wish http://meadev.nic.in/ind-ter/for-med/nytimes-14aug2002.htm And that's all from me. Tune in next time tongue.gif PS it was great fun debating with you Kaushal smile.gif PPS Lots of typos in my post. I'll correct them later, now I have to rush of to Uni for a stats class sad.gif
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 12:37 PM
QUOTE
In India, a land in which widows were traditionally burned to death
This is the most disgusting statement I have ever read. It tells person had no clue about India History and time period. Being a woman I find this very offensive. Could you explain me about this tradition?
Posted by: Gouki Jul 22 2004, 12:46 PM
Yes, in India, tradiotionally widows were burned to death and this custom is known as the "sati". Altho the Indian government has banned this practice I have read reports by Dr. Chattergy that some Hindus in Rural Area still continue with this practice while chanting "Sati mata ki Jai" This is a historical fact. If you find it offensive, then I'm afraid you don't know much about Indian history.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 01:02 PM
Gouki, That what I was suspecting you have no knowledge about India and Hindus especially. When barbaric muslim used to invade India, after killing men they used to rape Hindu women and take them to their harem as a booty. In place of being a rape victim and sexually abused by barbaric muslims these Rajputans commit sucide. It lasted till barbarism of muslim was in India. Raja Raj Mohan, Dayanad Sarawati started reforming this practice during British period and law came during British period. Main reason it stopped was Muslim lost power in India. After India's independence there was only one sati or suicide incidence. What you are taking is false prapoganda which you can hear only in Pakistan fora or any Islamic sites. Huge number of Pakistan population is product of those Harem, Bhagalpur is a good example to start with.
QUOTE
I have read reports by Dr. Chattergy that some Hindus in Rural Area still continue with this practice while chanting "Sati mata ki Jai"
I want to see this report. Please give me link to enlighten myself.
Posted by: Sunder Jul 22 2004, 01:03 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 23 2004, 01:16 AM)
Yes, in India, tradiotionally widows were burned to death and this custom is known as the "sati". Altho the Indian government has banned this practice I have read reports by Dr. Chattergy that some Hindus in Rural Area still continue with this practice while chanting "Sati mata ki Jai" This is a historical fact. If you find it offensive, then I'm afraid you don't know much about Indian history.
For some reason I cannot trace this back to Arthashastra (300 BC) or to Manu Smrithi. AFAIK, the tradition of Widows voluntarily immolating themselves was a direct repurcussion of the Barbaric Islamic terrorism that was unleashed on India in between 712 AD and 1400 AD. Rani Padmini and co jumping into fire was glorified as Jauhar (spelling?) as they chose an honourable way to die than be raped and murdered as per the injunctions of the cult the Islamic Invaders like Alladin Khalji. Thus, this very evil "tradition" that you mention can be traced back to words from Arabia between 610-633 AD. Refer to the widows of Dasaratha, or to Pandu's widow Kunthi, or to Jhansi's Rani Lakshmi Bai etc. smile.gif
Posted by: menakamk Jul 22 2004, 01:12 PM
And there is no histroy of sati in southern regions, which clearly points out that sati was practised in only few parts if india, i.e where there was muslim invasion's.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 01:17 PM
QUOTE
traditation
Talaq Talaq Talaq or call for Jihad is a tradition.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 22 2004, 01:37 PM
QUOTE
That what I was suspecting you have no knowledge about India and Hindus especially.
You are right Muddy, I am ignorant regarding Hinduism. The same way you are frighfully ignorant about my religion Islam. Shall we call it even then?
QUOTE
What you are taking is false prapoganda which you can hear only in Pakistan fora or any Islamic sites.
Does Dr. Chattergy sound like a Muslim to you? blink.gif
QUOTE
want to see this report. Please give me link to enlighten myself.
It's in a booklet called "O you Hindu, Awake!". I'm not sure if there is an online version of the book available. Besides, its been a long time since I've read the book, so maybe I am mistaken. If I am, I apologise.
QUOTE
AFAIK, the tradition of Widows voluntarily immolating themselves was a direct repurcussion of the Barbaric Islamic terrorism that was unleashed on India in between 712 AD and 1400 AD.
Sorry, but there was no terrorism at that time. The first use of the word terrorist was recorded during world war 2 by French resistance against German occupation. Oh, and do you have any scholarly refrence to that collosal claim? I'm not denying that Muslim invaders DID commit atrocities, but they were not so wide spread as you think. If that were true, you would be a Muslim and so would 90% of India's population. However, Muslims are only 10% of the Indian population. Something to think about eh? wink.gif This is what I learnt about Sati. Feel free to correct me since I am but a hunble student. " I. What is Sati? Hindu custom in India in which the widow was burnt to death on her husband?s pyre. Can be a voluntary choice or force upon a woman by her in-laws. II. Reasons for Sati A widow's status was looked upon as an unwanted burden that prevented her from participating in the household work. Her touch, her voice, her very appearance was considered unholy, impure and something that was to be shunned and abhorred. A woman was considered pure if she committed Sati. III. The History Behind Sati Sati, the wife of Daksha, was so overcome at the demise of her husband that she immolated herself on his funeral pyre. Sati was the consort of Lord Shiva. She burnt herself in fire as protest against her father, Daksha did not give her consort Shiva the respect she thought he deserved. IV. Theories of Origin Even though Sati is considered an Indian custom or a Hindu custom it was not practiced all over India by all Hindus but only among certain communities of India. Sacrificing the widow in her dead husband's funeral or pyre was not unique only to India. This custom was prevalent among Egyptians, Greek, Goths, and others. Ramayana- Sita walks through fire to prove her purity. Mahabharata- Madri throws herself on her husband, Pandu?s fire. V. Outside Views Impact A few rulers of India like the Mughals, tried to ban this custom. Italian Traveler Pietro Della Valle (1586-1652) has documented the Sati ritual that he witnessed in the town of Ikkeri in November of 1623. Colonel William. H. Sleeman (1809 - 1856 A.D.) served as the collector of Jabalpur. VI. Sati in the Modern times In general, before this custom was outlawed in 1829, there were a few hundred officially recorded incidences each year. The efforts of Raja Rammohan Roy and other Hindu reformers greatly impacted the movement to outlaw this practice. Even after the custom was outlawed, this custom did not vanish completely. It took few decades before this custom almost vanished In 1987 an eighteen years old widow, Roop Kanwar, committed Sati in a village of Rajasthan The 'Sati' version is that Roop told her father-in-law she wanted to commit Sati. Roop was forced to commit Sati. The case went to court, but no one was charged with her murder. Even in the year 2000, you hear about Sati occurring in rural villages" http://www.indianchild.com/sati_in_india.htm See, unlike most of you people, I have researched your religion, but you have not researched mine. I have read about Hinduism, I have read about half of the Ramayan (it was too long, but I'll finish it sometime). How many of you have actualy read the Quran? Did you know that the Arabic word "Jihad" litterally translates as "Endeavour" and not war? The Arabic word for war is "Harb" and it does not appear in the Quran. Even the Prophet Mohammad reffered to the greater Jihad as "keeping the devil away from your heart" and reffered to the fighting Jihad as the "lesser Jihad". According to the Quran (chapter 2:193-96) Fighting was only allowed in self defence. How many of you knew that? Muslims invaded for the same reason the Europeans did, MONEY!!! But nobody says, "Gee the British invaded India, Christianity is EVIL." I made an honest mistake about Sati and I admit that I am ignorant, and yet a pack of you people decend upon me like vultures ready to rip my throat out. Atleast I made an attempt. Atleast I read parts of the Ramayan and Mahabharat. That's the difference between between us. Atleast I tried to understand your religion, to bad you lacked the decency to respond in kind. Now I really have to run to University.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 01:52 PM
QUOTE
See, unlike most of you people, I have researched your religion, but you have not researched mine.
I have done reseach on your religion Like Mecaa was Shiva temple, Shiva Idol is still inside Mecca People of Arabia were Pagan. http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aditichaturvedi/vpopia5.html http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0002/ET21-5523.html http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html
QUOTE
The Spaniards called the land of the Ra-Ram-Uri Chiahuahua, pronounced as Shivava by the natives themselves. In Sanskrit, Shivava = "Shiva's Temple." According to Hindu religious scholars, Ram and God Shiva were once the same deity. Shiva and Yah's (the same one we read about in the Bible) name are also prominent in Native-American religious practices and can be found inscribed as petroglyphs all over the American Southwest. (Refer to my book India Once Ruled the Americas!) Ayodhya was also another name for Dar-es-Salam in African Tanzania and Jerusalem (Judea). It is true that the Jerusalemites were known as Yehudiya or Judeans (Warriors of Yah), a fact making the Jews' Indian origins incontrovertible. There was no part of the ancient world, including China, that wasn't influenced by Ram's religious views. For example, Christians and Jews have been brainwashed to believe that Mohammed copied his teachings from Jewish sources. The truth is that in Mohammed's time, Ram or Abraham's theology was the foundation stone of all religious sects. All Mohammed did was to purge them of idol worship. "...the Temple of Mecca was founded by a colony of Brahmins from India.it was a sacred place before the time of Mohamed, and.they were permitted to make pilgrimages to it for several centuries after his time. Its great celebrity as a sacred place long before the time of the prophet cannot be doubted." (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, p. 421.) "...the city of Mecca is said by the Brahmins, on the authority of their old books, to have been built by a colony from India; and its inhabitants from the earliest era have had a tradition that it was built by Ishmael, the son of Agar. This town, in the Indus language, would be called Ishmaelistan." (Ibid, p. 424.) Before Mohammed's time, The Hinduism of the Arab peoples was called Tsaba. Tsaba or Saba is a Sanskrit word, meaning "Assembly of the Gods ". Tsaba was also called Isha-ayalam (Shiva's Temple). The term Moslem or Moshe-ayalam (Shiva's Temple) is just another name of Sabaism. The word has now shrunk to Islam. Mohammed himself, being a member of the Quaryaish family, was at first a Tsabaist. The Tsabaists did not regard Abraham as an actual god, but as an avatar or divinely ordained teacher called Avather Brahmo (Judge of the Underworld).
Have you every tried to find out your roots? When your family adopted Islam. As we Hindus can trace our family History back to 1000 years. I want to know did you ever have curosity to find the answer when it happened, why your family took this route? Is it happen after atrocities of Timur Lang or Babar or Auranjeb or Akbar or Kutab or Tippu Sultan? We can move discussion on Islam on this thread http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153&view=findpost&p=110
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 02:07 PM
QUOTE
"Sati" Pratha in India, is a custom which came into existence as a result of Muslim oppression and brutality. The Hindu women of India, in order to save their honor, used to jump into the fire after their husbands were brutally murdered by Muslim invaders. The question that arises from this is why did the Hindu women jump into the fire and kill themselves? Why didn't they just poison themselves? Why did the Hindu women choose a method of suicide that ensured the destruction of their physical bodies? The reason for this is that the lecherous necrophiliac Muslim invaders did not even leave the dead bodies alone. Yes, they had sex even with the dead bodies! How disappointing it must have been for the Muslim rapists to find nothing, but ashes.
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/readersvoice/dhrtwar.html
Posted by: Gouki Jul 22 2004, 02:24 PM
Mudy, your "research" was obtained from Anti Islam Hindutva sites. Credible research would be from well known encyclopedias like Encarta or Britannica. I see that it is rather pointless debating with you since you are but a small prejudiced woman who is so consumed by hatred and intollerance that it has corroded your sense of reasoning. No need to move this debate anywhere. It's people like you that make me want to settle in Canada even tho I was to return to India. This must make you very happy, you now have one less Muslim in YOUR sacred Motherland.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 22 2004, 02:35 PM
Truth hurts, Why you think my link is false and your link is sword of truth? My opinion is prejudiced and not yours. Why I should ignore history when I don't see a single temple standing older than hundred years in greater Punjab? How i can ignore destruction of Sun temple in Sindh or Ram temple in Ayodhya or Krishana Temple in Mathura? Why we should ignore numerous attack on Somnath temple? Why I should stop listening slaughter of inncocent Hindus? What is happening now in world is a continuation of same agenda? It is easy to fingure point on other, one should acknowldge what was happened in India/Hindus history was barbaric and bad and try to improve future with good deeds or good Karma.
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 22 2004, 03:02 PM
Gouki,
QUOTE
Did you know that the Arabic word "Jihad" litterally translates as "Endeavour" and not war?
Yes. And Islam means 'Peace'.
QUOTE
Muslims invaded for the same reason the Europeans did, MONEY!!!
Yes. But the Shenshah who had all the wealth still felt the need to bury alive or kill the hindus and sikhs who refused to accept Islam.
QUOTE
Does Dr. Chattergy sound like a Muslim to you? blink.gif
I guess you are referring to Angana Chattergee. If yes, don't bother. Most forumites around here know where she comes from.
QUOTE
This is what I learnt about Sati. Feel free to correct me since I am but a hunble student.
One sallow doesn't make summer. Perhaps we should label every arab or muslim nation as 'nation of honor killings'. Maybe even US is 'land of buring women on stakes' (Salem)
QUOTE
Hindu and Muslims have traditionally lived in peace and harmony, contrary to Hindutva propoganda
Perhaps you'll post your views on "Hindutva propoganda" in the Hindutva thread.
QUOTE
Israel is a nation that has no respect for international law whatsoever and continues to violate US resolution 242
You also quote Prof Chomsky. Are you aware of Prof Chomsky's views on US violations of UN resolutions? As far as international laws, "jiski latthi uski bhains"; hope you are familiar with the saying.
QUOTE
"Let the Palestinains live like dogs" said Moshe Dayan
Can't help notice you picking abusive quotes from Israel. How about one from Moshe Dayan's own PM - Ms Golda Meir "We can have peace with arabs when they start loving their children more than hating ours"
QUOTE
some of the other Anti Muslim bigots I've seen on this board
Perhaps you should start pointing them out with a good reason.
QUOTE
Let's not forget that our nation too was occupied by the English not so long ago. Our forefathers were oppressed the same way the Palestinians are currently being oppressed.
Well, we have guys running around in the wilds of Minnesota, Texas etc who are claiming that they are 'occupied'. Also some Quebec (french loving) people in your neck of the woods. Let's not forget Ujihair in Xianiang prov of China, Shias in Pakistan, Chechens in Russia, etc. Any idea on the number of muslims in Israeli parliament? Now compare that minority representation in other arab nations.
QUOTE
But isn't it hypocrital to condemn the Taliban for blowing up religious structures for religious reasons while Hindus do the very same thing in India?
Well if you want an equal-equal, point to the structures that Buddhist blew up to build those Bamayian statues and we can all issue a strong note of condemation on Babri. You could start a petition too and we can get forumites here to sign it.
QUOTE
Just because Islamic terror gets maximum media coverage does not mean that 90% of Global terrorists are Muslims.
Let us know as to the criteria you used to come to this conclusion. Or is it just a specualtion? You could be right of course but everything we read in media these days point us to the contrary.
QUOTE
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Well, I don't recall people like Gandhi, Khan Adbul Gafar Khan or Martin Luther King endorsing people to send their kids to blow up themselves and other civilians.
QUOTE
That's how I feel when people call me a "terrorist supporter" when I speak for the Palestinians. Now do you understand my anguish???
How come in over 50+ years, Palestian hasn't produced a freedom fighter who dosen't advocate annihaltion of jews yet? I had a conversation with someone and did discuss at a great length that if there was even *one* figure like Gandhi, Palestinians would have been better off by now.
QUOTE
Today the Pakis are using rebels millitants to take Kashmir away from us.
Err...over 80% "rebels" in Kashmir are not Kashmiris, but Pakis, Saudis, Yemens, Chechen etc. B. Raman (he is an authority on this) on saag.org had some figures on this, feel free to dig it up there.
QUOTE
Again you are so wrong. I've lived in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) for 10 years and some of their state controlled newspapers (Gulf news for one) are blatantly pro Indian.
Just curious - how come every known criminal finds scantuary in UAE and their govt refuses to act on interpol notices?
QUOTE
However, I know 2 Brahmin girls who actually LIKE living there and do not want to leave
Whether they practise it or not is a different question, but do this Brahmin girls have the freedom to practise their religious beliefs in Saudi?
QUOTE
It teaches that Jesus boils in hell
What does Koran and Hadiths say about Jesus and Mother Mary? I trust you have read it full.
QUOTE
Tensions between Hindus and Muslims are the result of the British policy of "Divide and Conquer."
Who do you think played their part in creating Israel or for that matter handing over one part of Arabia to one cousin and another to the other? See the parallel?
QUOTE
Credible research would be from well known encyclopedias like Encarta or Britannica
In one post you lament of western media portraying Muslims in bad light while in another you claim it to be credible source. Cherry picking aren't we?
QUOTE
It's people like you that make me want to settle in Canada even tho I was to return to India. This must make you very happy, you now have one less Muslim in YOUR sacred Motherland.
In case you haven't noticed today in India the richest Indian is a Muslim and the president is a muslim. So you can return to India if you wish and please don't blame anyone else for your own life decisions.
Posted by: Gargi Jul 22 2004, 05:34 PM
QUOTE
Fighting was only allowed in self defence. How many of you knew that? Muslims invaded for the same reason the Europeans did, MONEY!!! But nobody says, "Gee the British invaded India, Christianity is EVIL
All mulsim invader attacked India was in defense, they called it Jihad. Islam call people from other religion Kuffir. And it states killing of Kuffir are permitted. Invaders were barbaric, but one should not stay in denial mode e.g. Sati, you became so innocent as it was just a slip and gave refernce to a propoganda from Paki site.
QUOTE
yet a pack of you people decend upon me like vultures ready to rip my throat out
It is not our tradition to slit thoat, we practice debate or discussion. It is open forum. What we see in current environment, Islam need reformation. Sooner it is better for civilization. They should shed medival code and write new code. Define religion with new guidelines. Stop preaching hatred through Madarasa, denounce sucide bombing, slitting throat, beheading, killing innocent in the name Allah.
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Jul 22 2004, 06:35 PM
Per Andre Wink, Al Hind vol 1, Page 192 The first islamic barbarian to order an attack on India was the prophet himself The first muslim to actually attack India was the so called righteous caliph Umar who did a naval invasion of Thane in 636 and this pirate was defeated The next muslim barbarian to invade India was the Caliph Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet who did a land invasion of Baluchistan in 657 AD and was defeated Before the invasion Mohd Bin Kasem in 712 AD, there were 17 prior invasions of Sindh Every hindu must read the original writings of muslim historians such as Chachnama, Al-beruni, Ferishta etc They record with glee the massacres of hindu civilians and temple destruction As far as communal riots go, Ibn Batuta in 1350, notes that the kerala muslims did frequent communal rioting , this inside a hindu kingdom What we are seeing with this muslim poster is a sophisticated islamic tactic called Taqiyah which means deceive the infidel to advance the cause of islam A muslim can do evasive action on Ghazni and Aurangzeb, but they cant dodge Umar , Ali and the prophet himself regarding islamic atrocities in India
Posted by: Gargi Jul 22 2004, 07:00 PM
QUOTE
muslim historians such as Chachnama, Al-beruni, Ferishta etc
Where I can find English version and title of books. Thanx in advance
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Jul 22 2004, 07:26 PM
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTajulMaasirframe.htm http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTabakatiNasiriframe.htm http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_kumar-v_alber_frameset.htm http://www.truthtree.com/islam/temple2.shtml http://www.truthtree.com/islam/temple1.shtml http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/node8.html Best is to read RC.Majumdar, he uses primary sources
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 10:07 AM
@ Sudhir
QUOTE
Yes. And Islam means 'Peace'.
Wrong, Islam means "submission to God." "salaam" means "peace."
QUOTE
Yes. But the Shenshah who had all the wealth still felt the need to bury alive or kill the hindus and sikhs who refused to accept Islam.
Care to name this nameless Shenshah? Care to name one city, or town that he forcefully converted?
QUOTE
I guess you are referring to Angana Chattergee. If yes, don't bother. Most forumites around here know where she comes from.
I've read a booklet by a Dr.Chattergy who seemed very Anti Hindu. I don't know much about her background, maybe you could help me with this one.
QUOTE
One sallow doesn't make summer. Perhaps we should label every arab or muslim nation as 'nation of honor killings'. Maybe even US is 'land of buring women on stakes' (Salem)
huh?
QUOTE
You also quote Prof Chomsky. Are you aware of Prof Chomsky's views on US violations of UN resolutions? As far as international laws, "jiski latthi uski bhains"; hope you are familiar with the saying.
Oh I'm familiar with the saying. So you want weaker nations to roll over and play dead. Great strategy.
QUOTE
Can't help notice you picking abusive quotes from Israel. How about one from Moshe Dayan's own PM - Ms Golda Meir "We can have peace with arabs when they start loving their children more than hating ours"
Thanks for that quote, I think I'll frame it for it is the first of its kind comming out of that country in more than 50 years.
QUOTE
Perhaps you should start pointing them out with a good reason.
I don't point fingers. I think they know who they are.
QUOTE
Well, we have guys running around in the wilds of Minnesota, Texas etc who are claiming that they are 'occupied'. Also some Quebec (french loving) people in your neck of the woods. Let's not forget Ujihair in Xianiang prov of China, Shias in Pakistan, Chechens in Russia, etc.
false analogy. Those people want want independance from their parent nation. Palestine (that land which was to alloted to the Arabs by the UN) was invaded by Jewish millitants in 1948 expelling 800,000 arabs from their homes. This lead to the first arab Israeli war (See Noam CHomsky "Fatefull Triangle")
QUOTE
Well, I don't recall people like Gandhi, Khan Adbul Gafar Khan or Martin Luther King endorsing people to send their kids to blow up themselves and other civilians.
You heard of the Indian mutiny?
QUOTE
Err...over 80% "rebels" in Kashmir are not Kashmiris, but Pakis, Saudis, Yemens, Chechen etc. B. Raman (he is an authority on this) on saag.org had some figures on this, feel free to dig it up there.
Err, you made the claim, logic demands that you provide the evidence.
QUOTE
Just curious - how come every known criminal finds scantuary in UAE and their govt refuses to act on interpol notices?
NO idea how the UAE govt works. It ain't excatly a democracy incase you haven't noticed.
QUOTE
Whether they practise it or not is a different question, but do this Brahmin girls have the freedom to practise their religious beliefs in Saudi?
They are practicing brahmin girls and they even told me that they don't mind wearing a scarf when they leave their houses. I'd post their names, but on the internet you can't be too sure.
QUOTE
What does Koran and Hadiths say about Jesus and Mother Mary? I trust you have read it full.
Yes, it teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and that his birth was a miracle and that his mother is blessed amoungst women. Its in Chapter 3 of the Quran.
QUOTE
Who do you think played their part in creating Israel or for that matter handing over one part of Arabia to one cousin and another to the other? See the parallel?
I see the parallell, but what does that have to do with anything? we should be sorting out Hindu Muslim tensions first. When I say "support Palestine" I mean aid the procedure whereby they may get their own state.
QUOTE
In one post you lament of western media portraying Muslims in bad light while in another you claim it to be credible source. Cherry picking aren't we?
I was reffering to encyclopedias. They usually come unbiased. I was lamenting more about Journalism.
QUOTE
Well if you want an equal-equal, point to the structures that Buddhist blew up to build those Bamayian statues and we can all issue a strong note of condemation on Babri. You could start a petition too and we can get forumites here to sign it.
haha, nice try. The Taliban blew up the statues for religious reasons and the facist Hindu nationalists demolished Babri for religious reasons too. If your argument is that Babri was built on a demolished Hindu temple and thus it is justified to take it down I have 2 things to say to you: 1) You have a serious historic hangover 2) 2 Wrongs don't make a right. You are just as low as the Muslims you claim to be above. I know Gandhi would turn the other cheek.
QUOTE
In case you haven't noticed today in India the richest Indian is a Muslim and the president is a muslim. So you can return to India if you wish and please don't blame anyone else for your own life decisions.
Yes you are reffering to Azim Premji. I suppose his wealth will protect him. Can't say that for the remaining Muslim population. Plus if my fellow country men are hostile to me and my faith, what future do I have in India? Perhaps as far as physical safety goes I have nothing to be worried about, but I know the Hindu nationalists will go at great lenghts to alienate Muslims and make them feel strangers in their own homes. Oh and call me when you elect a Muslim PM.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 10:23 AM
QUOTE
Oh and call me when you elect a Muslim PM.
Pakistan was created for that purpose so that you can have your own PM, President and religion. Let me know in advance when we can see Hindu temple again in Arabia.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 10:33 AM
QUOTE
Pakistan was created for that purpose so that you can have your own PM, President and religion.
who is "you" Ms Mudy? I'm an Indian citizen and I'd like to keep it that way. I know in your prejudiced little distorted mind (term used loosely) that makes me less of an Indian.
QUOTE
Let me know in advance when we can see Hindu temple again in Arabia.
There is a Hindu temple in Dubai to which my Hindu friends go to regularly. There are also 2 Sikh temples. Don't you feel even a little stupid making such statements about the Middle east when you have not even been there?
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 10:33 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Jul 23 2004, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE
Oh and call me when you elect a Muslim PM.
Pakistan was created for that purpose so that you can have your own PM, President and religion. Let me know in advance when we can see Hindu temple again in Arabia.
Mudy: You missed the point:
QUOTE
Oh and call me when you elect a Muslim PM
wink.gif Busted whistle.gif All my Indian muslim friends talk about "us" electing someone for whatever office.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 10:39 AM
Where is Hindu temple in Saudi Arabia? I want to visit me. Please give name of town.
QUOTE
who is "you" Ms Mudy? I'm an Indian citizen and I'd like to keep it that way. I know in your prejudiced little distorted mind (term used loosely) that makes me less of an Indian
Because that is the main problem, in place of reasoning you can resort in calling names. Same problem what is happening in current world politics. All Islamic terrorist give reason for terrorism is oppression by Jews or Hindus and what is happening in Israel and Kashmir. They don't see something wrong with their thinking. They have problem with living with other community. Take example of yourself, you are claiming pity on yourself, showing you don't want to go back to India because of me, do you have some facts with you. Since partition of India where partition was based on religion two countries were created for Hindus and Muslims. Pakistan where over 15% Hindu population living in Pakistan is now less than 2% left. In India just after partition Muslim population was 9% now it is around 14%. Check, what is the status of Hindus in Muslim country, Bangladesh. But Indian Muslim still blame Hindu nationalist and call oppression and want pity. India president, speaker is Muslim but still expect Muslim PM. They expect reservation; they start riots but still blame Hindu. Try to live with other in peace, stop this nature of grabbing and lying.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 10:56 AM
@ sudhir lol Sudhir, you wish tongue.gif I used the term "YOU" because I'm not residing in India currently and will thus not vote. @ Mudy You've used your fair share of labels agaisnt Muslims too, so don't give me a lecture on namecalling. And I'm not blaming Hindus, just the Hindu nationalists.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 11:02 AM
QUOTE
And I'm not blaming Hindus, just the Hindu nationalists.
Whats wrong being nationalist of Hindu religion. Nationalism is a good thing. Atleast, we have guarantee that they will not ask for separate land.
Posted by: Sunder Jul 23 2004, 11:06 AM
Gouki, welcome to the forum. I have been following your posts, and am sure you present the devil's advocate when you side with Palestine instead of Israel. Religion itself would mean unifying instead of diversifying. I have nothing against muslims (as a people), but I have every thing about 7th century mentality of Islam. Islam talks about brotherhood only to an exclusive club. If you are muslim you are in the brotherhood ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3917425.stm ) where equality is the key. Else, if you are not in the exclusive club, you outght to be killed. Any cult that believes in Exclusivity cannot claim to also be Universal. Universal exclusivity is an oxymoron, just as much as islamic peace is.
QUOTE
Wrong, Islam means "submission to God." "salaam" means "peace."
The word “salam” means literally “A contract involving an immediate payment of the price, and admitting delay in the delivery of the article purchased” It has been used in the Quran (2.131, 3.20) to mean “bowing down before Allah” or “surrender to Allah”. The word “as-salAm” which has been derived from it is “One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of Allah” and means according to al-BaizAwI, “He who is free from all loss or harm.” Another word derived from it is “taslIm” which means “The benediction at the close of the usual form of prayer”, that is, namAz. Similarly, the word “IslAm” in the Quran means “doing homage to Allah” and “is said to be the religion of all the prophets” who preceded Muhammad, the Last Prophet According to 3.19, Islam is Allah’s own religion, and those who reject Allah’s revelations will be punished soon. According to 3.85, he who believes in a religion other than Islam will not be accepted, and will be a loser on the Last Day. According to 49.14, the Bedouins say that they have confessed ImAn but they should say instead that they have confessed IslAm. The other word, Muslim, naturally meant ‘traitor,’ and when the new sect came to be lampooned, it provided the satirists with a witticism; Mohammed showed some want of humour in adopting it but displayed great ingenuity in giving it an honourable meaning: whereas it ordinarily signified one who handed over his friends to their enemies, it was glorified into meaning one who handed over his person to Allah; Reference: http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi3.htm
QUOTE
Care to name this nameless Shenshah? Care to name one city, or town that he forcefully converted?
Reference: http://voi.org/books/siii/ch6.htm ---------- http://voi.org/books/siii/ch7.htm I would like to post the entire two chapters here, but it would save space if you can read them biggrin.gif
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 11:15 AM
Gouki,
QUOTE
QUOTE
Yes. But the Shenshah who had all the wealth still felt the need to bury alive or kill the hindus and sikhs who refused to accept Islam. Care to name this nameless Shenshah? Care to name one city, or town that he forcefully converted?
Well since you have confessed that you have spent a good part of your adult life in UAE (and now in Canada), I can accept your ignorance on this issue. Does the name Aurangazeb ring any bells? Hey, there's even a Aurangabad. Please feel free to visit some sikh sites (since hindu site won't satisfy you) and they have it listed in great detail.
QUOTE
I've read a booklet by a Dr.Chattergy who seemed very Anti Hindu.
Very anti hindu. Hmm. Thanks. That certainly clears up.
QUOTE
QUOTE
One sallow doesn't make summer. Perhaps we should label every arab or muslim nation as 'nation of honor killings'. Maybe even US is 'land of buring women on stakes' (Salem)
huh?
huh indeed
QUOTE
QUOTE
You also quote Prof Chomsky. Are you aware of Prof Chomsky's views on US violations of UN resolutions? As far as international laws, "jiski latthi uski bhains"; hope you are familiar with the saying.
Oh I'm familiar with the saying. So you want weaker nations to roll over and play dead. Great strategy
Well, welcome to the real world. BTW, hope is not a stragegy.
QUOTE
Thanks for that quote, I think I'll frame it for it is the first of its kind comming out of that country in more than 50 years
Maybe for you. There's more should you care, first make an honest effort to look it up, failing which I'll help you.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Perhaps you should start pointing them out with a good reason.
I don't point fingers. I think they know who they are.
But some of us don't. If you make an accusation, please be man to stand up.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Err...over 80% "rebels" in Kashmir are not Kashmiris, but Pakis, Saudis, Yemens, Chechen etc. B. Raman (he is an authority on this) on saag.org had some figures on this, feel free to dig it up there.
Err, you made the claim, logic demands that you provide the evidence
I'll wait for you to justify your claims which came *before* mine. I've gone the extra mile of pointing you to the website. Hope you know who B Raman is right? Come back when you have clarfied "Just because Islamic terror gets maximum media coverage does not mean that 90% of Global terrorists are Muslims"
QUOTE
NO idea how the UAE govt works.
My question was a genuine one pertaining to your 10 years experience there.
QUOTE
It ain't excatly a democracy incase you haven't noticed.
Sorry. Was fooled there for about a minute with your free pro-India press post.
QUOTE
They are practicing brahmin girls and they even told me that they don't mind wearing a scarf when they leave their houses. I'd post their names, but on the internet you can't be too sure.
There's a lot of Indians in Saudi who are happy there and I don't think anyone has an issue with it. I'm trying to understand the 'Brahmin' accept of your post. Are Brahmins allowed to practice their religious faith? Or is there price for them NOT wearing a scarf. Can they drive without a male accompanying them - I can understand if they don't know to drive or they refuse to drive.
QUOTE
Yes, it teaches that Jesus was a prophet of God and that his birth was a miracle and that his mother is blessed amoungst women. Its in Chapter 3 of the Quran
Well my reading pointed to some things which had a christian friend of my really offended - especially challenges to his claims of divinity or the trinity issue. See http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/ or http://pages.prodigy.net/jmiller.cb/a831.html
QUOTE
QUOTE
Who do you think played their part in creating Israel or for that matter handing over one part of Arabia to one cousin and another to the other? See the parallel?
I see the parallell, but what does that have to do with anything? we should be sorting out Hindu Muslim tensions first.
So you start of in Israel thread and land up on Hindu muslim tensions. Now your agenda is bit more clearer. Thanks.
QUOTE
When I say "support Palestine" I mean aid the procedure whereby they may get their own state
There is a roadmap for the Palestine state. It's been discussed and accepted in principle by Arafat, his cabinet, Israeli parliament, US State Dept and Bush and his neo-con. I don't remember reading anywhere as to India opposing it. Did you? What should India do that it has not already done for Palestine? Please list it in the Israel thread if you have an answer of substance. It would be genuinely enlightening.
QUOTE
You have a serious historic hangover
You bring up issue with Bamiyan from 5 years ago to compare with Babri from 10 years ago. So who's one with hangover. Please define as to how far should one go back in history. 10 years, 50 years or 500 years. How about curing 'hangovers' by going back to the great Mohd (PBUH) himself and discussing Kabba. I'll post in Ayodhya thread references to works by Ibn Ishaq - Mohd's biographer and his work from 'Encylopedia of Islam'. We can take the Babri discussion there.
QUOTE
I know Gandhi would turn the other cheek.
Well said. I'll wait for a Gandhi to emerge in one of the Arab or gulf or Muslim states who 'liberates' muslims oppressed by muslims. Then you can have my both my cheeks.
QUOTE
I used the term "YOU" because I'm not residing in India currently and will thus not vote.
Check out all the threads in the Politics thread. All NRIs are refering to 'our' elections or 'our' constitution' or 'our' PM. BTW, we have first minority PM so maybe we'll a muslim one too - your vote not withstanding.
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 11:34 AM
QUOTE (Sunder @ Jul 23 2004, 11:36 PM)
I would like to post the entire two chapters here, but it would save space if you can read them biggrin.gif
Sundar, This book "The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World" by *non-Hindu* authors Srdja Trifkovic, Serge Trifkovic http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1928653111/102-3050601-7715317?v=glance has plenty material too.
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Jul 23 2004, 10:53 PM)
Let me know in advance when we can see Hindu temple again in Arabia.
Mudy : Hindu Temple in Arabia!!! In over Fifty Years of Diplomatic Relations with Saudi Arabia Secular India with over 80% Hindu Population has not been PERMITED to appoint even ONE HINDU as an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia as India has always appointed a Muslim Ambassador to Saudi Arabia as per Saudi Arabian Wishes. Gouki and his Religious Brothers-Sisters will always point out to ONE BABRI MOSQUE being destroyed but will never ever make amends for the Millions of Hindu Temples Destroyed by the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent nor the Millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains etc. who were Slaughtered or forced to convert to Islam to save their lives. It is only in Hindu Majority India that the Non-Hindu population especially the Muislims have doubled since Independence. In Muslim Pakistan the Hindu-Sikh Population has gone down from about 25% down to about One Percent. In Muslim Bangladesh the Hindu population has gone down from about 30% down to about 11-12%. This is the True Brotherhood of Islam – Kill the Kafirs & Kill the Idolaters. Cheers
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:11 PM
@ Sudhir
QUOTE
Well since you have confessed that you have spent a good part of your adult life in UAE (and now in Canada), I can accept your ignorance on this issue. Does the name Aurangazeb ring any bells?
Ah yes, the evil kafir hating Moghul emperor who sent his trusted general JAI SINGH to attack Shivaji? sorry, never heard of him.
QUOTE
Very anti hindu. Hmm. Thanks. That certainly clears up.
Kind of like some of the writers some of the Hindu nationalists quote. But ofcourse when they do it is accepted as legit debate. Oh well.
QUOTE
Well, welcome to the real world. BTW, hope is not a stragegy.
Your defination leaves little room for hope.
QUOTE
Maybe for you. There's more should you care, first make an honest effort to look it up, failing which I'll help you.
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.
QUOTE
But some of us don't. If you make an accusation, please be man to stand up.
Like I said, I don't point fingers. Being the only Muslim here (or so it seems) I feel alienated enough already.
QUOTE
Come back when you have clarfied "Just because Islamic terror gets maximum media coverage does not mean that 90% of Global terrorists are Muslims"
My response was against someone who made the claim that most terrorists in the world are Muslims. So as I've said earlier, if someone assumes an unproven conclusion to be true, they are commiting the reasoning fallacy known as "begging the question." (see Moris, "With Good Reason). I never made the claim that most global terrorists are Muslim, so I have nothing to prove here.
QUOTE
My question was a genuine one pertaining to your 10 years experience there.
As far as the harbouring of criminals goes, as what you earlier asked, I honestly don't know.
QUOTE
I'm trying to understand the 'Brahmin' accept of your post. Are Brahmins allowed to practice their religious faith? Or is there price for them NOT wearing a scarf. Can they drive without a male accompanying them - I can understand if they don't know to drive or they refuse to drive.
The driving and scarf rule also apply to Muslim women. Saudi Arabia sucks. ANd yes, Brahmins are allowed to practice their faith, but definately not at the same rate of freedom as in Dubai.
QUOTE
Well my reading pointed to some things which had a christian friend of my really offended - especially challenges to his claims of divinity or the trinity issue.
That's a difference of opinion. Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate while Muslims believe he was a great prophet in line of Moses and David. I fail to see what is so derogetory here. Compare that to the Talmudic teaching that calls Mary a "harlot."
QUOTE
So you start of in Israel thread and land up on Hindu muslim tensions. Now your agenda is bit more clearer. Thanks.
excuse me? I mentioned the Brit divide and conquer strategy by turning Hindus against Muslims (seems to have worked quite well) and it was you that responded with the ISrael Palestine thing.
QUOTE
You bring up issue with Bamiyan from 5 years ago to compare with Babri from 10 years ago. So who's one with hangover. Please define as to how far should one go back in history. 10 years, 50 years or 500 years.
The widows of Hindu Nationalist violence during the Babri episode are still alive Mr Sudhir. The Palestinians who were driven into refugee camps by Jewish millitants in 1948 are still alive Mr Sudhir while the ShenShah and his goons have long since perished. I think it is clearly YOU that has the historic hangover.
QUOTE
Well said. I'll wait for a Gandhi to emerge in one of the Arab or gulf or Muslim states who 'liberates' muslims oppressed by muslims. Then you can have my both my cheeks.
It took India more than 150 years (since the begining of Brit occupation) to produce a Gandhi. Palestine hasn't been occupied for so long. We'll give them another 100 years to be even. Again, have you forgotten the Indian mutiny? Kind of hypocrital of you to pass that of as legit (Brit civillians in India were massacred) while condemning Palestinian armed struggle.
QUOTE
Check out all the threads in the Politics thread. All NRIs are refering to 'our' elections or 'our' constitution' or 'our' PM. BTW, we have first minority PM so maybe we'll a muslim one too - your vote not withstanding.
Congress is the governing party of MY country but YOU elected him since I did not vote and becasue I DO NOT reside in India. Manmohan Singh is thus MY PM although I did not vote. clear?
QUOTE
This book "The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World" by *non-Hindu* authors Srdja Trifkovic, Serge Trifkovic Amazon has plenty material too.
I understand there is a great deal of money to be made from evil Muslim conspiracy theories. boo
Posted by: acharya Jul 23 2004, 12:21 PM
The Real Islam A tale of two opposing visions of Islamic afterlife—one mystical, the other orthodox—in eternal conflict http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/journey/india.html HOLY QUEST: Early morning at the Nizamuddin shrine in New Delhi, where Sufis pray to find their way in this life and the path to the next What you must understand is this," said Amin, stroking his long, straggly beard. "Sufism is not Islamic. It is jadoo: magic tricks. It is superstition. It has nothing to do with real Islam." Amin ul-Karim and I were standing outside a kebab restaurant among the medieval lanes of Nizamuddin, my favorite part of New Delhi. Clouds of charcoal smoke wafted into the air, and the scent of grilling meat floated out over streets bustling with pilgrims, madrasah students, sellers of rose petals, little boys playing cricket and beggars seeking alms. To one side lay the destination to which the crowds of pilgrims were heading: a warren of alleys and bazaars leading toward the shrine of India's most revered Sufi saint, Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya. Nizamuddin was a 14th century Muslim mystic who withdrew from the world and preached a message of prayer, love and the unity of all things. He promised his followers that if they loosened their ties with the world, they could purge their souls of worries and directly experience God. Rituals and fasting were for the pious, said the saint, but love was everywhere and was much the surest route to the divine. Yet only a short distance from the shrine towered a very different Islamic institution, one that embodied a quite different face of Islam. The merkaz is a modern, gray, concrete structure seven stories tall that houses the world headquarters of an austere Islamic movement called Tablighism, to which Amin belongs. The Tablighis advocate a return to the basic fundamentals of the Koran, and greatly dislike the mystical Islam of Sufism, which they believe encourages such un-Koranic practices as idolatry, music, dancing and the veneration of dead saints. This was certainly the view of Amin, who, when I met him, had been busy trying to persuade passing pilgrims to turn away from their destination. "I invite these people who come to Nizamuddin to return to the true path of the Koran," he said. "Do not pray to a corpse, I tell them. Go to the mosque, not a grave. Superstition leads to jahannam—hell. True Islam leads to jannah—paradise." "What sort of paradise?" I asked. "It is beyond all human imagination," said Amin. "But there will be couches to lie on in the shade, and rivers of milk and honey and, cool, clear springwater." "What about the Sufi idea that God can also be found in the human heart?" I asked. "Paradise within us?" said Amin, raising his eyebrows. "No, no, this is emotional talk—a dream only. There is nothing in the Koran about paradise within the body. It is outside. To get there you must follow the commands of the Almighty. Then when you die, insh'allah, that will be where your journey ends." The Real Islam — page 2 Here, it seemed to me, lay some sort of crux—a clash of civilizations, not between East and West but within Islam itself. Between the strictly regulated ways of the orthodox Tablighis and the customs of the heterodox Sufis lay not just two different understandings of Islam but two entirely different conceptions of how to live, how to die, and how to make the final and most important, and difficult, journey of all—to paradise. Six years earlier, I had been sitting in a roadside tea shop amid the desert of Rajasthan when I saw a succession of five bicycle rickshaws appear over the horizon, winding their way through the dusty scrub of the Jaipur highway. Every time a juggernaut thundered past, the fragile rickshaws lurched toward the dirt of the hard shoulder. The desert was level and featureless. So flat was the ground that through the shimmering heat haze you could see the convoy struggling for a full half-hour before it finally drew level with the roadside dhaba. Inside the rickshaws were 12 Sufi dervishes, with wild eyes and long, unkempt beards. The fronts of their shalwars were covered with charms, pieces of tinsel and silver talismans. They were all—drivers and dervishes alike—hot and thirsty, and they pulled into the dhaba calling loudly for water and tea. The men were braving the desert to attend the death anniversary of the Sufi saint Khwaja Garib Nawaz, who lived in the 13th century, a little before Nizamuddin's time and who belonged to the same mystical tradition. As they shook the desert from their clothes, I asked them about their journey. "We have cycled all the way from Delhi," said one of the drivers. "Delhi? But that is—what?—400 km away?" "Garib Nawaz will reward us for our pains," he replied. "It is he who gives us strength." The drivers and their passengers sat together on a charpoy, pouring their tea into tin saucers, then noisily sipping the hot, sweet liquid from the plates. "Anyone who steps through the door of his shrine," said another driver, "will get paradise as his everlasting home." I was heading in the same direction, so the following day I went along to the Sufi festival in Ajmer. Virtually overnight the small provincial town was transformed into a heaving, mystic metropolis. Tens of thousands of pilgrims from all over India were milling around the streets, pouring out of buses, unrolling their bedding on the pavement, and cooking their breakfast on portable stoves. From the different encampments on the outskirts—tent cities that resembled the halting place of some medieval army—rivulets of devotees threaded through the bazaars, forming larger streams as they converged on the streets leading to the shrine. A succession of Mughal mosques, tombs and pavilions were crammed to bursting with ecstatics and madmen, pilgrims and spectators. The entire complex was alive with the intoxicating smell of roses, which the devotees carried in sweet-smelling punnets to pour great fountains of petals onto the saint's grave. The numbers were amazing, but what was even more remarkable in a nation polarized by religious rivalries was the different traditions from which the pilgrims were drawn. Many were Muslim, but there were also Hindus, as well as the odd Sikh and Christian, all queuing to pay their respects to the saint. Here, for once, you saw religion bringing people together, not dividing them. Sufism was not just something mystical, ethereal and otherworldly, I felt, but a balm on India's festering religious wounds. I asked one group of Hindu pilgrims if they were made to feel welcome in a Muslim shrine. "Of course," said their leader, a trader from neighboring Gujarat state. "All Gods are the same." When I asked why they had made the effort to come all this way, the man replied with the following story: "When our child was young, he became very ill. No medicines from any doctor helped. We tried everything, but our son only got weaker. Then some neighbors said we should come here. We were desperate, so we got on a bus. We brought the boy to the shrine and one of its guardians cured him. What could not be done in 12 months he did in a minute." So now the trader and his family return each year to give thanks. The Real Islam — page 3 From the very beginning of Sufism, music, dance, poetry and meditation have been seen as crucial spiritual strides on the path of love, an invaluable aid toward attaining unity with God—true paradise. Music, in particular, enables devotees to focus their whole being on the divine so intensely that the soul is both destroyed and resurrected. At Sufi shrines, devotees are lifted by the music into a state of spiritual ecstasy. Yet these heterodox methods of worship have divided Sufis from many of their Muslim brethren. Throughout Islamic history, more puritanical Muslims have claimed that Sufi practices were infections from Christianity and Hinduism, quite alien to the original principles of Islam. As Najaf Haider, professor of medieval history at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, tells it, such conflicts were inevitable: "In orthodox Islam the object of creation is the worship of God; God is the master and the devotee is the slave. The Sufis argue that God should be worshipped not because he has commanded us to but because he's such a lovable being. The cornerstone of Sufi ideology is love, and all traditions are tolerated because anyone is capable of expressing love for God." The most formidable of all the anti-Sufi movements was Wahhabism from Arabia, its followers the progenitors of modern Islamic fundamentalists, who on coming to power in the early 19th century destroyed all the Sufi and Shi'a shrines in Arabia and Iraq. Today, the most prominent—and powerful—Wahhabis are the Saudis. Because they dominate media in the Arab world, many contemporary Muslims have been taught a story of Islamic religious tradition from which Sufism is rigorously excluded. I first came across strongly anti-Sufi sentiments last fall when I visited a shrine just outside Peshawar in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. The Sufi shrine of Rahman Baba has for centuries been a place where Muslim musicians and poets have gathered. It is built around the tomb of a 17th century mystic poet whose Pashtu Sufi verses have led to him being described as the nightingale of Peshawar. A friend who had lived nearby in the 1980s advised me to visit on a Thursday night, when crowds of Afghan refugee musicians sing to their saint by the light of the moon—a sight he described as unforgettable. Since he had left Peshawar, however, much had changed. Two Saudi-funded madrasahs had been built on the road to the shrine, and they had taken it upon themselves to halt what they regarded as the shrine's un-Islamic practices. One Thursday I drove out of Peshawar, passed the two madrasahs, and found the tarmac road giving way to a mud track, down which herds of sheep were throwing up huge clouds of dust as they were driven back to their village compounds for the night. Past the village was a well-irrigated enclosure sheltered by a windbreak of date palms. Beyond lay the glistening white dome of the shrine, and facing it a mosque and a new mud-brick library. Tamarind, neem trees and a great, spreading banyan grew beside a bubbling spring. But there were no musicians there that evening, only a small crowd of beggars, a man selling chick peas and dates from a trolley, and a couple of Sufi holy men carrying green flags. Watching suspiciously a short distance away were two young men wearing full beards, white robes and checked red-and-white Saudi ghuttras, or head scarves. I asked one of the shrine's guardians, Tila Mohammed, why there were not more pilgrims and what had happened to the musicians for which his shrine was once famous. He motioned for me to come into his room beside the library, out of the earshot of the two men in ghuttras. "My family has been singing here for generations," said Tila Mohammed. "But now these Arab madrasah students come here and create trouble. They tell us that what we do is wrong. They ask people who are singing to stop. Sometimes arguments break out—even fistfights. This used to be a place where people came for peace of mind. Now they just encounter more problems, so gradually people have stopped coming." "We pray that Baba will work a miracle," Tila Mohammed continued, "that good will overcome evil. But our way is pacifist. We love. We never fight. When these Arabs come here, I just don't know what to do to stop them." The Real Islam — page 4 The tablighis in Nizamuddin are not Wahhabi, but their beliefs are derived from similar theological traditions. They share the Wahhabis' suspicion of the Sufis, and their effect on the Nizamuddin shrine is the same, as they slowly attempt to undermine Islam's most tolerant and syncretic incarnation just when that face of Islam is most needed in healing the growing breach between Islam and other religions. After leaving Amin at the doors of his Tablighi headquarters, I headed on down into the alleys of Nizamuddin. Taking off my sandals at the entrance of the shrine, I spoke with Hussein, the old man who looks after the shoes of the pilgrims. I asked what he thought of the Tablighis. Hussein's response was passionate: "These people are so extreme and intolerant. Look around you. Everyone in Delhi knows about the power of Nizamuddin. Everyone knows that if your heart is pure and you ask him something, that he cannot refuse you. I have felt his power in my own life. I lost my hut in a slum clearance 10 years ago. I was hungry and I had nothing. But I prayed to the saint, and through him I found a place to stay and a way of supporting my family. I tell you: if anybody abuses Nizamuddin Auliya, I will be the first to defend him—with my knife if need be." The cornerstone of Sufi ideology is Love. —NAJAF HAIDER, Indian historian It was a Thursday evening when, during the singing of the qawwalis, the mesmerizing love songs of the Indian Sufis, the spiritual life of the shrine was to reach its climax. Huge crowds of pilgrims were already sitting cross-legged in the forecourt in front of the tomb, and the first qawwali singers were beginning to strike up their music. Around them was a press of excited onlookers. Most pilgrims had come with their families—groups of little boys with eyes wonderfully darkened with kohl, little girls who perhaps had been ill and had been brought for healing. At the shrine itself there were young women trying to tie small threads through the lattices of its screens, each one of them with some prayer or petition, usually a plea for marriage or children. To one side was a huge cauldron of biryani that had just been carried in to feed the poor. On another was a gathering of women who had come to learn to read Arabic in the simple school that operated from the back of the shrine. There were Muslim grandmothers in black chadors from Bengal, Punjabi Sikhs in their blue turbans, Hindu women from South India with the large red bindis on their foreheads, all coming to pray to the saint, all coming to use Nizamuddin as their intermediary to God. The crowds thickened. The tempo of the music quickened, and some of the pilgrims began to sink into a trance. Old men were swaying now, arms extended, hands cupped in supplication, lost to the world; women were tossing their hair from side to side; and the first of a succession of dervishes rose to their feet to dance. The atmosphere, already heavy with the rich scent of rose petals, grew heavier still, filled with the softly mouthed and murmured prayers, and with the passionate incantations and expectations of 10,000 pilgrims. I left them there, with their prayers and petitions, still seeking paradise in that most elusive of all destinations, the human heart.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:23 PM
@ peregrine "God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8)" "O People of the Book! (Jews and Christians)Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God. (Surat Al 'Imran, 64)" You were saying?
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 12:26 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 23 2004, 10:37 PM)
Care to name this nameless Shenshah? Care to name one city, or town that he forcefully converted?
Gouki, One “Somnath” and “Dwarka” where over 50,000 were Slaughtered should suffice.
QUOTE
false analogy. Those people want want independance from their parent nation. Palestine (that land which was to alloted to the Arabs by the UN) was invaded by Jewish millitants in 1948 expelling 800,000 arabs from their homes. This lead to the first arab Israeli war
Sorry my man. The Arabs collectively declared war on Israel. India and Pakistan settled Millions of Refugees. The Arabs couldn’t settle even Half a Million. Do you think that the Millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Jains who fled Pakistan due to “Religious Slaughter” will be allowed back to their Lands and Homes in Pakistan?
QUOTE
They are practicing brahmin girls and they even told me that they don't mind wearing a scarf when they leave their houses. I'd post their names, but on the internet you can't be too sure.
They can’t mind “wearing scarves” otherwise it is “Or Else”.
QUOTE
haha, nice try. The Taliban blew up the statues for religious reasons and the facist Hindu nationalists demolished Babri for religious reasons too. If your argument is that Babri was built on a demolished Hindu temple and thus it is justified to take it down I have 2 things to say to you
What was the Religious reason to Destroy the Bamayan Buddhas? You moan about ONE BABRI MOSQUE. What about the Millions of Hindu, Sikh and Jain Temples destroyed by the Muslims right down to Aurangzeb? Even today Hindu Temples (may be Sikh and Jain too) are being regularly being damaged, defaced, destroyed in Lotastaan and Bhookhanangadesh.
QUOTE
Oh and call me when you elect a Muslim PM.
You must be a Lotastaani trying to enforce a Directly Elected Muslim who forms 15% of the Population. Unfortunately for you in due course of time when an Indian Muslim – I do not mean a Muslim in India – is committed to the Unity, Integrity, Interests and Welfare of India without pining for the Lotas across the Border i.e. is a True Indian Muslim then I see no reason why he or she cannot get elected a Prime Minister. The Indian Muslim will have to win the confidence of his supporters and the Parliament. He or she cannot stand up and say “I am Muslim – Make me Prime Minister”. We are India – not Lotastaan – and in India a Prime Minister is Elected. Unlike in your Lotastaan where they keep being appointed by the “Army”. Your Lotastaan is an Army Cantonment masquerading as a Nation. So stop acting like an Indian. Cheers
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:30 PM
@ Acharya Even authentic non Sufi Islam is about love, believe it or not. However, ever since the British funded the Wahabis agaisnt the turks in the 18th century, the violent wahabis have gotten quite strong and eventually claimed the Birthplace of Islam itself, Arabia, which they named to "Saudi Arabia" after Ibn Saud, a crazy wahabi. I despise Wahabism, every form of it, and if it wasn't for the British, the movement would have died down eventually. Sufiasm is an interesting branch of Islam. In some ways it mirrors Christian gnostisicm. Unfortunately because the wahabis have claimed Arabia, and the wahabis are nuts, most people look to Saudi Arabia to set an example. This is bogus. The turkish Muslims hated the Arabs and even said their namaz in Turkish and not in Arabic. Wahabism leans towards Arabism. This is not the Islam of the Prophet.
Posted by: Reggie Jul 23 2004, 12:34 PM
From http://www.secularislam.org "We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue." Also, from http://www.faithfreedom.org The following is the essence of the Quran, the rest are fairy tales: Quran Surah 2: The Cow Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 6 Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 10 A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 24 Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 39, 90 For disbelievers is a painful doom. 104 For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 114 Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 126 The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 162 They will not emerge from the Fire. 167 Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 174 How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 175 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191 War is ordained by Allah. 216 Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 217 Disbelievers worship false gods. They will burn forever in the Fire. 257 Allah does not guide disbelievers. 264 "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 286 Quran Surah 3: The Family Of 'Imran Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 4 Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 10 Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 12 Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 21 Theirs will be a painful doom. 77 All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 85 Disbelievers will have a painful doom. And they will have no helpers. 91 Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day. They will face an awful doom. 105-6 Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire. 116 The Fire is prepared for disbelievers. 131 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 151 Theirs will be an awful doom. 176 Disbelievers do not harm Allah, but will have a painful doom. 177 Disbelievers will have a shamful doom. 178 Disbelievers will go to Hell. 196 Quran Surah 4: Women Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will be burnt with fire and suffer a painful doom. 14 For the disbelievers, We have prepared a painful doom. 18 For disbelievers, We prepare a shameful doom. 37 Hell is sufficient for their burning. 55 Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided. 56 Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 74 Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 76 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 89 If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 91 ( Offering peace in Islam means surrendering. All 67 out of 68 wars of Muhammad were offensive. They are called qazwah (raid, ambush, sudden attack). That is how Muhammad waged his wars. He raided, massacred and looted civilians with no warning. The one defensive war, 'ditch' was not fought. That is why the Islamic terrorism 'jihad' will continue until the West "offers peace". This was made clear by Bin Laden.) Those who oppose the messenger and become unbelievers will go to hell. 115 Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe and disbelieve again will never be forgiven by Allah. 137 For the hypocrites there will be a painful doom. 138 Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers into hell. 140 The hypocrites will be in the lowest part of hell and no one will help them there. 145 You must believe everything Allah and his messengers tell you. Those who don't are disbelievers and will face a painful doom. 150-151 For the disbelievers, Allah has prepared a painful doom. 161 God will guide disbelievers down a road that leads to everlasting hell. 168-169 Quran Surah 5: The Table Spread Those who deny Islam will be losers in the Hereafter. 5 Disbelievers are the rightful owners of Hell. 10 Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 33 (Anyone who resist Islam is deemed to be making war with Allah) Disbelievers will have a painful doom. 36 Disbelievers will want to come out of the Fire, but will not. Their will be a lasting doom. 37 Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers. 45 Christians will be burned in the Fire. 72 Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom. 73 Disbelievers will be owners of hell-fire. 86 Quran Surah 6: The Cattle Many generations have been destroyed by Allah. 6 Allah will torment those who deny his revelations. 49 Those who disbelieve will be forced to drink boiling water, and will face a painful doom. 70 When nonbelievers die, the angels will deliver to them doom and degradation. 93 Allah chooses to lead some astray, and he lays ignominy on those who disbelieve. 125 Allah will send everyone the Fire, except those he chooses to deliver. 128 Quran Surah 7: The Heights How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. 4-5 Allah has made devils the protecting friends of disbeliveers. 27 Disbelievers choose devils as protecting friends and believe they are rightly guided. 30 Only believers go to heaven. 32 Disbelievers are the rightful owners of the Fire. 36 Entire nations have entered the Fire. Some get a double torment. 38 Disbelievers will be excluded from heaven. Theirs will be a bed of hell. 40-41 Those in the Fire will cry out to those in heaven, saying: "Pour water on us." But Allah has forbidden that to disbelievers. 50 Those who deny Muhammad's revelation are evil. 177 Quran Surah 8: The Spoils of War Allah will throw fear into the hearts of the disbelievers, and smite their necks and fingers. 12 Disbelievers will be tormented in the Fire. 14 When you fight with disbelievers, do not retreat. Those who do will go to hell. 15-16 Taste of the doom because ye disbelieve. 35 Those who disbelieve will be gathered into hell. 36 The angels smite the face and backs of disbelievers, saying: "Taste the punishment of burning!" 50 The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers. 55 Exhort the believers to fight. They will win easily, because disbelievers are without intelligence. 65 A prophet may not take captives until he has made a slaughter in the land. 67 Surah 9: Repentance Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. 3 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 5 Don't let idolaters tend the sanctuaries. Their works are in vain and they will be burned in the Fire. 17 Give tiding of a painful doom to Christians and Jews. 34 If you refuse to fight, Allah will afflict you with a painful doom. 39 Disbelievers go to hell. 49 Those who vex the Prophet, for them there is a painful doom. 60 Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will burn in the fire of hell. 63 Allah promises hypocrites and disbelievers the fire of hell. Allah curses them. They will have a lasting torment. 68 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway. 73 Allah will afflict disbelievers with a painful doom in this world and the Hereafter. 74 For disbelievers there will be a painful doom. 90 Don't pray for idolaters (not even for your family) after it is clear they are people of hell-fire. 113 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 123 Quran Surah 10: Jonah Disbelievers will have a boiling drink and a painful doom. 4 Those who neglect Allah's revelations will make their home in the Fire. 7-8 Allah has destoyed entire generations. 13 Those who disbelieved will face a dreadful doom. 70 Allah drowned those who disbelieved his revelations. 73 Moses asked Allah to harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they would not believe until they saw the painful doom. 88 Quran Surah 11: Hud Disbelievers wil1 end up in the Fire. 17 Those who oppose Islam and disbelieve in the Hereafter are guilty of the greatest wrong. 18-19 Those in the Fire will suffer as long as the heavens and earth endure. 106-7 Allah will fill hell with humans and jinn. 119 Quran Surah 13: The Thunder Disbelievers are the rightful owners of the Fire 5 Allah does not hear the prayer of disbelievers. 14 Those who do not answer Allah's call will go to hell. 18 Disbelievers will be tormented in this life, and suffer even more pain in the Hereafter. 33-34 The reward for disbelievers is the Fire. 35 Quran Surah 14: Abraham Woe unto the disbelievers. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2 Allah sends some people astray. 4 Those who are in hell will be forced to drink festering water which they can hardly swallow. They will want to die, but they will not be able to. Theirs is a harsh doom. 16-17 Allah sends wrong-doers astray. He does whatever he likes. 27 Those in hell will be chained together. Their clothing will be made of pitch and fire will cover their faces. 49-50 Quran Surah 15: The Rock Let the disbelievers enjoy life and let false hope beguile them. They will come to know! 2-3 Iblis will lead humans astray. Only perfect Muslims will be safe from him. The rest will go to hell. 39-43 Allah's doom is a dolorous doom. 50 Quran Surah 16: The Bee Allah could have led everyone to the truth, but he chose not to. 9 Those who don't believe in the Hearafter are proud. 22 Disbelievers are evil and will dwell in hell forever. 27-29 Disbelievers are liars. 39 Allah will add doom to doom for those who disbelieve. 88 Those who oppose Islam will face an awful doom. 94 Quran Surah 17: The Children of Israel Allah made hell to be a dungeon for disbelievers. 8 Allah has prepared a painful doom for those who disbelieve in the Hereafter. 10 Allah destroyed entire towns. 16 How many generations Allah has destroyed since Noah! 17 Allah intends to burn people in hell. 18 Allah makes it so that unbelievers cannot understand. 45-46 Allah will destroy every town before the Day of Resurrection. 58 Allah will send disbelievers astray. Then he'll burn them in hell, increasing the flames from time to time. 97-98 Quran Surah 18: The Cave Allah has prepared a Fire for the disbelievers. When they want a shower, Allah will give them a shower of molten lead to burn their faces. 29 Those who are condemned to the Fire know they will have no way to escape. 53 The worst wrong is to forget Allah's revelations. Allah covers their hearts and makes them deaf so that they will never believe the truth. 57 There is an appointed time in which the doomed will find no escape. 58 Allah has destroyed many towns. 59 On a certain day, Allah will present hell, in plain view, to the disbelievers. 100 Allah will welcome the disbelievers into hell. 102 Hell is the reward for disbelievers because they made a jest of Allah's revelations and messengers. 106 Quran Surah 19: Mary Allah will pluck out from every sect those who should burn in hell. 69-70 Allah will record what disbelievers say and then prolong their torment. 77-79 Allah has sent the devils on the disbelievers to confuse them. 83 Allah has destroyed many generations. 98 Quran Surah 20: Ta Ha Those who do not believe Allah's revelations will face doom in the Hereafter. 127 Allah has destroyed many generations. 128 Quran Surah 21: The Prophets Allah destroyed entire towns, yet the people still disbelieved. 6 The people cried out for mercy, but Allah killed them anyway. 15 Disbelievers will not be able to put out the fire on their faces and backs. They will be stupefied and no one will help them. 39-40 Allah gave judgment and knowledge to Lot . He was a righteous man. (Genesis 19:7-38) 75 Every person alive at the time of the flood was evil. So Allah drowned them all. 77 The disbelievers will stare in terror at what Allah has in store for them. 97-99 Surah 22: The Pilgrimage The devil will guide some to the punishment of the Flame. 3-4 Those who turn from the way of Allah will face ignominy in this world and burning in the next. 9 Whoever thinks that Allah will not give Muhammad victory should go hang himself. 15 Disbelievers will wear garments of fire, boiling fluid will be poured on their heads, their bellies and skin will be melted, they will be tormented with iron hooks, and when they try to escape they will be driven back with the taunt: Taste the doom of burning. 19-22 Allah will provide the disbelievers with a painful doom. 25 How many towns Allah has destroyed! 45 Those who disregard Allah's revelations are the owners of the Fire. 51 Those who disbelieve Allah's revelations will have a shameful doom. 57 Those who disbelieve Allah's revelations will burn in the Fire. 72 Quran Surah 23: The Believers Allah told Noah not to bother pleading for the people he was about to drown. 27 Those who don't believe in the Hereafter will receive extreme punishment from Allah. 74-77 When fire burns their faces, they will be glum. 104 Disbelievers will not be successful. 117 Surah 24: The Light Scourge adulterers and adulteresses with 100 stripes. Do not show them any pity. Have a party of believers watch the punishment. 2 Only adulterers can marry adulteresses. Believers are not to marry them. 3 Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. 26 Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 31 Disbelievers are miscreants. 55 Disbelievers will never escape the Fire that will be their home. 57 It's okay for believers to own slaves. 58 The only true believers are those who believe in Allah and his messenger. 62 Quran Surah 25: The Criterion Those who deny the coming of the Hour will be chained together and burned with fire. They will pray for their own destruction. 11-13 Allah will force the evil-doers to taste great torment. 19 It will be a hard day for disbelievers and wrong-doers. They will gnaw on their hands and wish they had chosen Islam. 26-27 Those who deny Muhammad's revelations will be destroyed. 36 Allah drowned everyone in the flood of Noah, and has prepared a painful doom for evil-doers. 37 Quran Surah 26: The Poets Allah destroyed the people in Lot 's town with a dreadful rain. 172-3 Many will not believe until they see the painful doom. 201 Those who believe in another god are doomed. 213 Quran Surah 27: The Ant Allah leads those who do not believe in the Hereafter astray by making things work out OK in this life, so that he can torment them forever in the next. They will get the worst punishment and will be the greatest losers. 4-5 "Allah destroyed them and their people, every one." 51 But he "saved those who believed." 53 Allah sent a dreadful rain on "those who stayed behind." 58 Whoever does something wrong will be thrown into the Fire. 90 Quran Surah 28: The Narrative Allah has completely destroyed many communities. 58 Allah will taunt Christians on the day of their doom, saying: Where are My partners whom ye imagined? 62-64 Allah caused the earth to swallow Korah. 79-81 Never help disbelievers. 86 (Can Muslims in countries ruled in by non-Muslims be loyal to their country?) Quran Surah 29: The Spider Those who disbelieve in the revelations of Allah have no hope of mercy. For such there is a painful doom. 23 Only wrong-doers deny the revelations of Allah. 49 Those who disbelieve in the revelations of Allah are the losers. 52 The doom of hell will come upon disbelievers suddenly, when they least expect it. 53-55 Quran Surah 30: The Romans Allah will tear Christians apart for ascribing partners to him. 13-14 Disbelievers will be brought to doom. 16 It's OK to own slaves. 28 Allah does not love disbelievers. 45 Allah seals the heart of disbelievers. (And then he burns them in the Fire.) 59 Quran Surah 31: Luqman Those who mislead others from Allah's way and mock Islam will have a painful doom. 6-7 Allah will give disbelievers a little comfort for a little while, and then he'll torment them forever with a heavy doom. 23-24 Quran Surah 32: The Prostration Allah will fill hell with the jinn and mankind together. 13 Allah: Taste the doom of immortality because of what ye used to do. 14 Those who used to deny the Fire will be tormented in it forever. 20 The worst thing you can do is to deny the revelations of Allah. 22 Quran Surah 33: The Clans Don't obey disbelievers. 1 (Can Muslims in countries ruled in by non-Muslims be loyal to their country?) Allah makes the deeds of unbelievers fruitless. 19 Allah cast panic into the hearts of the disbelievers. He killed some, and enslaved others. 25-26 Allah gave Zeyd’s wife, his own daughter in law to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 37 Ignore disbelievers and their poisonous talk. 48 It's OK to own slaves. 50 Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 50-51 It's OK to own slaves. 55 Those who malign Allah, Muhammad, and Muslims will be cursed by Allah in this life and with doom in the Hereafter. 57 Those who oppose Islam will be slain with a fierce slaughter. 60-61 Allah has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming fire, wherein they will abide forever. 64-65 The disbelievers will be burned in the Fire with a double torment. 66-68 Quran Surah 34: Saba Those who challenge the revelations of Muhammad will have a painful doom. 5 Those who disbelieve in the Hereafter will be tormented. 8 But some of the jinn Allah burned with flaming Fire. 12 Those who strive against Allah's revelations will be brought to the doom. 38 Those who worshipped the jinn will taste the doom of the Fire. 41 Allah hates those who ignore his messengers. 45 Those who are cast into hell be terrified when they see that they have no escape. Then they will believe. But it will be too late. 51-52 Quran Surah 35: The Angels Those who disbelieve will have an awful doom. 7 Allah sends whoever he wants astray. 8 Allah hates disbelievers. 26 Disbelievers will burn forever in the fire of hell. Allah will keep them alive so that he can torture them forever. When they repent and ask for mercy, he will ignore them. 36-7 He who disbelieves, his disbelief will be on his own head. 39 Allah has blinded the disbelievers so that they cannot see the truth. So it don't bother warning them. Quran Surah 36: Ya Sin They will go to hell anyway. 8-10 Allah has destroyed many entire generations. 31 If Allah feels like it, he will drown everyone. 43 Allah will burn the disbelievers in hell. 63-4 Quran Surah 37: Those Who Set The Ranks Those who refuse to believe in Muhammad's revelations will face a painful doom. 31-38 Those in hell must eat from a tree with the heads of devils, and then drink boiling water. After that they return to hell. 62-68 Allah drowned everyone except Noah and his family in the flood. 82 Allah tells Abraham in a dream to sacrifice his son. (But is the son Ishmael or Isaac?) 102 Allah killed everyone in Sodom except for Lot and his family. 136 No one is against Allah, except those who burn in hell. 162-3 Quran Surah 38: Sad Allah has destroyed many generations. 3 Those who doubt will soon taste Allah's doom. 8 Those who deny the messengers deserve doom. 14 Those who wander from the way of Allah will have an awful doom. 26 Those who disbelieve will burn in the Fire. 27 The transgressors will roast in the Fire and be forced to drink boiling liquids followed by ice cold drinks. 55-9 Iblis asks Allah to let him hang around and mislead humans. Allah allows him to do so, and Iblis leads all humans to hell except for the single-minded slaves. Allah agrees, and plans to fill hell with Iblis and his followers. 79-85 Quran Surah 39: The Troops Tell the disbelievers to enjoy themselves now, because later they will be owners of the Fire. 8 The losers will be those who lose themselves and their families on the Day of Resurrection. They will be surrounded by fire. 15-16 No one will be able to help those that Allah torments in the Fire. 19 Woe unto those who forget Allah. They are in plain error. 22 Allah sends some people astray. For them there is no guide. 23 The worst thing you can do is tell a lie against Allah. The home of disbelievers is hell. 32 Allah sends some people astray. For them there is no guide. 36 Surrender to Allah before he sends the doom upon you suddenly. 54-55 Those who lie about Allah will be sent to hell and will have their faces blackened. 60 Losers are those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah. 63 Those ascribe a partner to Allah (like the Christians) will be among the losers. 65 Those who disbelieve will be driven into hell. 71-72 Quran Surah 40: The Believer Allah sent an awful punishment at the time of Noah. 5 Those who disbelieve are the owners of the Fire. 6 Allah greatly abhors those who disbelieve. 10 When the doom comes, the hearts of the doomed will choke in their throats, and no one will help them. 18 Those who ignore Allah's "clear proofs" will be seized and punished severely. 22 Those that Allah sends astray will have no helper or guide. 33 Allah deceives those who doubt. 34 The prodigals will be owners of the Fire. 43 The doomed will be exposed to the Fire morning and evening. 46 Those in hell will beg to be relieved from the Fire's torment for just a day. But the prayer of a disbeliever is in vain. 49-50 Those who bicker about Allah's revelations are filled with pride. 56 Those who scorn Allah will go to hell. 60 Those who deny the revelations of Allah are perverted. 63 Those who deny the Scripture and Allah's messengers will be dragged through boiling water and thrust into the Fire. 70-72 Allah will taunt the Christians in hell, saying: Where are all my partners that you used to believe in? 73 Thus does Allah send astray the disbelievers (in his guidance). 74 Those who scorn will go to hell. 76 When they see Allah's doom they will believe in Allah. But their faith will not save them. The disbelievers will be ruined. 84-85 Quran Surah 41: Fusilat Woe unto the idolaters who disbelieve in the Hereafter. 6 Allah will make life miserable for those who deny his revelations and then he will torment them forever in the Hereafter. And they will not be helped. 15-16 The enemies of Allah will be gathered into the Fire where their skin, ears, and eyes will testify against them. 19-20 Allah will make those who disbelieve taste an awful doom. Their immortal home will be the Fire, since they denied Allah's revelations. 27-28 Those who disbelieve will taste hard punishment. 50 Quran Surah 42: The Counsel While some lounge in the Garden, others will roast in the Flame. 7 Those who argue about Allah will have his wrath upon them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 16 Allah sometimes kills people for misbehaving. 34 Allah sends some people astray and then punishes them for it by burning them in the Fire. 44-46 Allah makes some people barren. (Whenever he feels like it.) 50 Quran Surah 43: Ornaments of God When the Egyptians angered Allah, he drowned them all. 55 Those who argue and do wrong will have a painful doom that will come upon them suddenly. 65-66 The guilty are tormented forever in hell. Allah will not relax their punishment. 74-75 Quran Surah 44: Smoke Those in torment will claim to believe and ask Allah for relief. But he will refuse since they will return to their disbelief. 11-16 Those in hell must eat from a tree like molten brass that burns their bellies. Then boiling water will be poured on their heads. 43-48 Quran Surah 45: Crouching Those who hear and reject Allah's revelations are sinful liars. Give them tidings of a painful doom. 7-8 Those who joke about Allah's revelations will go to hell. Theirs will be an awful doom. 9-10 Those who disbelieve in Allah's revelations will have a painful doom of wrath. 11 Allah sends some people astray, making it impossible for them to hear or see. 23 Those who disbelieve are guilty folk. 31 Quran Surah 46: The Wind-Curved Sandals Disbelievers will be rewarded with the ignominious doom of the Fire. 20 The guilty will face a wind with a painful torment. 25 Allah has destroyed entire towns. 27 Allah will taunt the disbelievers that he torments in the fire, saying: "Taste the doom for that ye disbelieved." 34 Quran Surah 47: Muhammad Allah makes the works of disbelievers vain. 1 Those who disbelieve follow falsehood. 3 Smite the necks of the disbelievers whenever you fight against them. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded. 4 Allah will damn the disbelievers and make all their actions fruitless. 8-9 Disbelievers may eat and be happy now, but the Fire will be their final home. 12 Those in the Garden will drink delicious wine, while those in the Fire will drink boiling water that will tear apart their intestines. 15 Allah curses people by making them deaf and blind. 23 Angels will gather them together and smite their faces and backs. 27 Allah will make the actions those who disbelieve fruitless. 32 Those who disbelieve will never be pardoned by Allah. 34-35 Quran Surah 48: Victory Those who think an evil thought concerning Allah will be cursed and sent to hell by him. 6 Allah has prepared a flame for the disbelievers. 13 If you refuse to fight for Allah, he will punish you with a painful doom. 16-17 But if you're willing to fight for Allah, he will provide you with lots of booty. 19-20 Allah punished those who disbelieved with a painful punishment. 25 Those with Muhammad are ruthless toward disbelievers and merciful toward themselves. 29 Quran Surah 49: The Private Apartments Do not lift your voice when in Muhammad's presence. Those who subdue their voices are righteous and will receive an immense reward from Allah. 1-3 Quran Surah 50: Oaf Allah has destroyed many entire generations. 36 Quran Surah 51: The Winnowing Winds Accursed are the conjecturers who ask: When is the Day of Judgment? It is the day they will be tormented by the Fire. 10-14 Woe to the disbelievers. 60 Quran Surah 52: The Mount Those who deny the existence of hell will be thrust into its Fire. 11-16 Those who disbelieve are trapped. 42 Quran Surah 54: The Moon Allah sent a storm of stones on Lot's folk, killing all but Lot 's family. 34 The suffering in hell will be more wretched and bitter than anything experienced on earth. 46-48 Allah destroyed many people, but does anyone remember anymore? 51 Quran Surah 55: The Beneficent The guilty deny hell. But after they die they go circling between it and fierce, boiling water. 43-44 Quran Surah 56: The Event But those on his left hand will face scorching wind, scalding water, and black smoke. 42-43 Those who deny Allah and the Hereafter will eat from the Zaqqum tree and drink boiling water. 51-54 Allah will welcome the rejecters and erring with boiling water and a roasting in the hell fire. 92-94 Quran Surah 57: Iron The home of disbelievers is the Fire, a hapless journey's end. 15 Those who disbelieve and deny Allah's revelations are the owners of the fire. 19 Quran Surah 58: She That Disputeth For disbelievers is a painful doom. 4 For disbelievers is a shameful doom. 5 Don't make friends with Allah's enemies. For those who do so, Allah has prepared a dreadful doom. 14-15 Those who turn others away from the way of Allah will have a shameful doom. They are rightful owners of the Fire. 16-17 Those who oppose Allah and His Messenger will be among the lowest. 20 On the Last Day good Muslims will not love their non-Muslim friends and family members, not even their fathers, sons, or brothers (or their mothers, daughters, or sisters). 22 Quran Surah 59: Exile Allah cast fear into the hearts of the disbelieving People of the Scripture. Their home in the Hereafter will be the Fire. 2-3 The disbelieving people of the Scripture are liars. 11 The devil and disbelievers will be in the Fire. 16-17 The owners of the Garden and the owners of the Fire are not equal. 20 Quran Surah 60: She That is to be Examined Don't be friends with disbelievers. They are your (and Allah's) enemy. 1 Don't be friends with those who have warred against you because of religion. Whoever makes friends with them is a wrong-doer. 9 Don't be friends with those who disbelieve in the Hereafter. They are Allah's enemies. 13 Quran Surah 61: The Ranks Allah loves those who fight for him. 4 Allah leads some people astray. 5 The worst thing you can do is tell a lie about Allah. 7 Quran Surah 62: The Congregation A hypocritical Jew looks like an ass carrying books. Those who deny the revelations of Allah are ugly. 5 Quran Surah 63: The Hypocrites Allah seals the hearts of those who believe and then disbelieve so that they can understand nothing. 3 Disbelievers are perverted. They are the enemy, confounded by Allah. 4 Don't bother to ask Allah to forgive the disbelievers. He will never forgive them. 6 Quran Surah 64: Mutual Disillusion Those who disbelieve will have a painful doom. 5 Those who disbelieve are the owners of the Fire. 10 Quran Surah 66: Banning Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 5 The fuel of the Fire is men and stones. 6 Be stern with disbelievers. They are going to Hell anyway. 9 The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire. 10 Quran Surah67: The Sovereignty Disbelievers will go to hell where they will hear its roaring and boiling. 6-7 Who will protect the disbelievers from a painful doom? (Nobody) 28 Quran Surah 69: The Reality Those who do not believe in Allah will be chained up and cast into hell-fire where they will eat filth. 30-35 Quran Surah 71: Noah Those that Allah drowned in Noah's flood were then tortured forever in the Fire. 25 Noah asked Allah to drown all the disbelievers. 26 Quran Surah 72: The Jinn The fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They will experience an ever-greater torment. 15-17 Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will dwell forever in the fire of hell. 23 Quran Surah 73: The Enshrouded One Allah will take care of the deniers. He will tie them up, burn them in a raging fire, and feed them food that chokes them. 11-13 Quran Surah 74: The Cloaked One The last day will be a day of anguish for disbelievers. 9-10 Those who are stubborn to Allah's revelations will face a fearful doom. 16-17 The fire of hell shrivels humans and spares nothing. 27-29 Allah has appointed angels to tend the Fire and has prepared stumbling blocks for those who disbelieve. He sends some people (whoever he wants) astray. 31 Allah is the font of fear. 56 Quran Surah 76: "Time" or "Man" Allah has prepared chains, manacles, and a raging fire for the disbelievers. 4 Don't obey disbelievers. 24 Quran Surah 77: The Emissaries Allah destroyed "the former folk." 16 Woe unto the repudiators on that day! 19, 24, 28, 34, 40, 45, 49 Quran Surah 79: "Those Who Drag Forth" Those who rebel will go to hell. 37-39 Quran Surah 80: "He Frowned" Disbelievers are wicked people. On the last day they will be in darkness and have dust on their faces. 40-42 Quran Surah 82: The Cleaving The wicked will burn in hell forever. 82 Quran Surah 84: The Sundering Some folks will be thrown into a scorching fire. 11-12 Disbelievers will be given a painful doom. 22-24 Quran Surah 87: The Most High Those who are flung into the great Fire will neither live nor die. 12-13 Quran Surah 88: The Overwhelming On that day many will be sad and weary. Scorched by the fire, drinking boiling water, with only bitter thorn-fruit to eat. 2-7 Allah will punish disbelievers with the direst punishment. 23-24 Quran Surah 89: The Dawn Allah poured on them the disaster of His punishment. 13 Quran Surah 90: The City Those who disbelieve Allah's revelations will have the Fire placed over them like an awning. 19-20 Quran Surah92: The Night Those who deny Allah's revelations must endure the flaming fire. 14-16
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:36 PM
@ Perigrine The arabs declared war becasue they knew they were going to be booted out of their land. This is the same reason why the Native INdians of the US took up armed resistance agaisnt the European settlers. Besides the Jewish millitants were cheerefully slaughtering and ethnically cleaning Palestine EVEN BEFORE ISRAEL GOT INDEPENDENCE. The town of Jafna was taken in April 1948 be Jewish millitants who drove out 15,000 arabs by slaughtering refinery workers (source: Dr. Finklestein, "Image and Reality") And yes, I agree with you. Aurangzeb was a b@st@rd and so were the other Moghuls. I personally don't like any of them since they mostly drunken sexaholics, but that is just my opinion. However I belive to "Live in the past is to die in the present". Keep that in mind. And I view Pakistan the same way I view Israel.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:46 PM
Ah, I see what the problem is. There are verses in the Quran that seem violent when taken out of context. Let me give you some background on the Quran. From an Islamic POV the Quran was written by God and revelaed to Mohammad in bits and pieces over time to deal with various issues that the commuty had to deal with. Jihad is to be declared only during self defence, and I have posted Quranic evidence to back that up. The so called violent verses which everyone quotes were revealed when the Muslims were under attack from the Quresh tribe. From a secular POV the Quran was most likely compiled by Mohammad. He composed various verses depending on what the situation was like. The initial verses were peacefull, however when the Quresh tribe declared war on him, the Muslims were like "now what?" It is then that such verses were composed by Mohammad that ordered Muslims to fight back and kill the infidels. You have to look at the verses in Historical context. If you merely pull them out and isolate them like how reggie has done, you will get a truly distorted picture. PS, reggie, you quoted a site that is run by Ali Sinna if I am not mistaken. That man is extremly anti Islam. If you truly wish to study Islam with an open mind, then let Muslims tell you about their faith, instead of hearing the hatefull views of Bible thumpers (Christian fundamentalists) and Hindutva fanatics. Anyways, if you still feel like hating Islam, go right ahead. I can see that Indian unity is so fragile that it requires a common enemy to bind the people toghether. Quite sad really.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 12:53 PM
Final point. THe conquest of India and Europe was not a Jihad expedition, but was an imperialist campaign. They conquered India in the name Moeny and not Allah. However, Jihad was a potent technique by which troops could be easily motivated. Babar himself was a drunken loser who was not religious. But he often used the term "jihad" to stimulate his troops. It's kind of like how Bush invades Iraq for Oil but tells US troops that "we are fighting evil!"
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 12:58 PM
QUOTE
Ah yes, the evil kafir hating Moghul emperor who sent his trusted general JAI SINGH to attack Shivaji? sorry, never heard of him.
Yes. And Akbar was married to a Hindu too. And there were a great number of "nobels" in all these mogul emperor's courts. That dosen't change history. Care to name the sikh gurus who was hallaled by the 'evil kafir hating Moghul' - it's a easy one. Sundar has the link, please check it. Or maybe everyone from Hindus and Christians and Jews are all concocting stories to make money.
QUOTE
Your defination leaves little room for hope.
You list the actions a weaker nation should take, then we'll come back to this point, till then we can be the forum jingos and machos proclaiming our manhood. Little good does it do to further discussion.
QUOTE
Being the only Muslim here (or so it seems) I feel alienated enough already.
Apologies. I'm sure people are responding to your content rather than your religious background. There have been Hindu postors around here in the past who too have been made to answer their posts. Isn't it part of the nature of discussion. Whethere it is one muslim or ten say the same things, my questions and arguements remain the same. This thread runs over dozen pages, you can start by educating us as to what's wrong with those posts and web sites referenced, maybe you'll win more friends here. Coming here with hidden agenda is not going to help as people can clearly see through. But then maybe you do not have one and could be a honest mistake. In one of your very first post here you mention about 'bigots on this forum'. You don't have anyone else but yourself if you come here with prejudice and complaing about others trying to 'rip your throat'.
QUOTE
ANd yes, Brahmins are allowed to practice their faith, but definately not at the same rate of freedom as in Dubai.
As far as I know Muttawa would arrest you if have any religious objects on you. A Christian friend of mine had his audio cassettes of gospel songs confisticated!
QUOTE
The widows of Hindu Nationalist violence during the Babri episode are still alive Mr Sudhir. The Palestinians who were driven into refugee camps by Jewish millitants in 1948 are still alive Mr Sudhir while the ShenShah and his goons have long since perished. I think it is clearly YOU that has the historic hangover.
Also alive are the 1000+ widows of September 7, 1969 riots in Baroda took place when a huge procession of 10,000 Muslims protested against the desecration of the Al Aqsa mosque in, of all places, Jerusalem! There are Indian Muslims who lay global islamic issue above the lives of other Indians (be it Hindu or muslim) and conveniently lay the blame on others. Rest in the ayodhya thread.
QUOTE
Congress is the governing party of MY country but YOU elected him since I did not vote and becasue I DO NOT reside in India. Manmohan Singh is thus MY PM although I did not vote. clear?
Err, no. What gives you the idea that I reside in India or for that matter I voted for him? Though I would address a fellow Indian like you by saying - 'let us vote for a muslim PM' rather than 'let me see you vote for a muslim PM'. I see the later a lot in the Paki web forums.
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 01:00 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:16 AM)
PS, reggie, you quoted a site that is run by Ali Sinna if I am not mistaken. That man is extremly anti Islam. If you truly wish to study Islam with an open mind, then let Muslims tell you about their faith, instead of hearing the hatefull views of Bible thumpers (Christian fundamentalists) and Hindutva fanatics.
Then you should know that Ali Sina has a open challenge to shut the site down if you can prove him wrong. Maybe you can and you should.
Posted by: Reggie Jul 23 2004, 01:06 PM
QUOTE
There are verses in the Quran that seem violent when taken out of context.
Sorry for taking God's words out of context.
QUOTE
Quran was written by God and revelaed to Mohammad in bits and pieces over time to deal with various issues that the commuty had to deal with.
Quite a teaser this god... bits and pieces eh? So God's revelation was time-specific and community-specific.
QUOTE
You have to look at the verses in Historical context.
God's WORDS in historical context? Heresy! I declare FATWA!
QUOTE
...Ali Sinna if I am not mistaken. That man is extremly anti Islam.
Noooo! And I thought he was Khomeni himself. Touba! Touba! Forget the man, disprove the verses.
QUOTE
If you truly wish to study Islam with an open mind
Ahhh! the same cliched response. Same ole, same ole!! True words indeed... Got to ratchet up and open this closed mind a little more.
QUOTE
instead of hearing the hatefull views of Bible thumpers (Christian fundamentalists) and Hindutva fanatics
As I said, same ole, same ole! Discuss Islam and Quoran and the first thing you hear is how bad those bible thumpers are (add hindutva fanatics from now on..)!
QUOTE
Anyways, if you still feel like hating Islam, go right ahead.
Question belief and Quoranc verses, and you are a Islam hater. Refer back to the qutoes from secularislam.org "We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue."
QUOTE
Quite sad really
Actually not! Start of a great weekend!
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:11 PM
I can't understand why you people are so hung up on Historic events that occured several hunred years ago. People were different then and had different perceptions. Christians were quite barbaric in their time too. THe Brits demolished a great deal of temples too. Isn't Christianity about love? Can you not understand that religion is used as a pretext by the elite to furthure their own agendas, be they Chriatian or Muslim?
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 01:14 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:41 AM)
I can't understand why you people are so hung up on Historic events that occured several hunred years ago.
Err...thought you started with your knowledge of 'Sati' or those 'Bamiyan Buddhas' or 'Babri'. Choose which era you want to live in and we can decide to discuss either.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:15 PM
Reggie, I suggest you get an opinion of your own instead of quoting others with a narrow perspective. I can quote other Anti Christian writers and claim that this is true Christianity. But instead I took a course in the Bible at my Uni. Anyways, I doubt you'll change so I won't waste anymore time here.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:17 PM
Sudhir, I did. For every instance I reffered to Babri, people have made 10 refrenced to Hindu temples being destroyed. You still cannot see thru the Britsh scheme can you? Too bad. reggie
QUOTE
Question belief and Quoranc verses, and you are a Islam hater.
You are not questioning Islam, you are making a direct accusation based on the personal assumptions of a man who is not even an authority on Islam. Someday you'll be ale to tell the difference.
Posted by: k.ram Jul 23 2004, 01:18 PM
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=30315245 http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/efaz/archive.asp?doc={0128B9BA-3F06-4C24-AE3C-\76D76B5D8B0F}&width=800&height=600&agt=netscape&ver=5&svr=5 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040723/wl_nm/sudan_dc
Posted by: Reggie Jul 23 2004, 01:20 PM
QUOTE
Can you not understand that religion is used as a pretext by the elite to furthure their own agendas, be they Chriatian or Muslim?
Agree! Mohammed did it then, his followers are doing it now! Gouki, there is a way out...you can do it. Visit faithfreedom site often. Remember God resides within you, don't let your local Mullah instill fear in your beautiful heart. For any emotional support, count on us!
QUOTE
reggie QUOTE Question belief and Quoranc verses, and you are a Islam hater. You are not questioning Islam, you are making a direct accusation based on the personal assumptions of a man who is not even an authority on Islam. Someday you'll be ale to tell the difference
Say what? I have quoted DIRECT verses from the Quoran. Ali Sina DOES NOT COME INTO this picture. No accusations sir, just plain old quotes, quotes directly from GOD's words. Then you suggest that I
QUOTE
Reggie, I suggest you get an opinion of your own instead of quoting others with a narrow perspective.
But you have already said that I might have a closed mind. So where do I go? And do I need to learn Arabic for that... one can always misinterpret Quoran if learnt in the Thai language!
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:22 PM
k.Ram, last time I checked, INDIAN society wasn't so tolerant of gays and adulterers. Your second link doesn't work. And I agree, the SUdan thing should be called a genocide.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:24 PM
QUOTE
Agree! Mohammed did it then, his followers are doing it now!
You have to prove that Mohammad did it then. The thing is, you cannot. You can make a case and argue it, which is what Ali SInna is doing, but you cannot objectively prove it because to do so would require you to read Mohammad's mind. This is merely an assumption and should be treated as such. If you believe this assumption you should inform the people that it is YOUR OPINION and not try and pass it of as fact. Mullahs? *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Reggie Jul 23 2004, 01:29 PM
What EXACTLY Ali Sina doing? All he is doing is quoting God's words from the Quoran. STOP right here.
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 01:31 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:47 AM)
Sudhir, I did.
Gouki, Please note that if you start off by mouthing "India a land of Sati" or prejudging people here be accussing them to be "bigots" on your very first day of posting here, it will come back. In web forums it's easier to look back at past events than towards future. If anything, I'll recommend you post on the points of Islam (without deriding other religions) that bring humans closer and talk about those Indian muslims who have served India well.
QUOTE
You still cannot see thru the Britsh scheme can you? Too bad.
British have long gone. Now it's up to us to set things right.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:36 PM
@ Reggie He's quoting God's words and interpreting them in a false manner. I understand that if you call Christianity a violent religion based on some of the violent verses in deuteronomy and Numbers, the Church will claim you are quoting the verses out of context yes? Your logic Reggie. Read Deut chp 20. It advocates the slaughter of Male POWs and enslaving the women and children. If I use this to claim that Christianity is barbaric, the Church will instantly tell me that I am quoting the verses out of context. But based on your logic, I am just quoting God's words right?
Posted by: k.ram Jul 23 2004, 01:39 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:52 AM)
k.Ram, last time I checked, INDIAN society wasn't so tolerant of gays and adulterers. Your second link doesn't work. And I agree, the SUdan thing should be called a genocide.
Indian society, even if it is intolerant towards Homosexuals etc, no one condones such practise or base the sanction of such acts in the name of majority religion, AFAIK. Then again, I do not live in India, so I cannot speak to the issue first hand. Regarding the second link, copyright issues prevent me from posting the whole article in a public forum.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:43 PM
@ Sudhir
QUOTE
Please note that if you start off by mouthing "India a land of Sati"
Neat, so now you know how it feels when people apply false labels to your faith? ALtho mine was an honest mistake which I acknolege.
QUOTE
or prejudging people here be accussing them to be "bigots" on your very first day of posting here, it will come back.
Lol @ that. You know, Neo Nazis refer to themselves as "seperatists" or "White Nationalists". Maybe I'll think of a softer term for some of the people here.
QUOTE
or prejudging people here be accussing them to be "bigots" on your very first day of posting here, it will come back.
When I get over the hypocrisy of your above statement, I'll respond.
QUOTE
British have long gone. Now it's up to us to set things right.
Yes, lets label the Muslims as Pro Paki traitors and label Islam as an evil conspiracy theory. Lets pollute Islamic history with only atrocities without mentioning their contributions to science and philosophy. Oh yeah, we'll set things right.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:49 PM
I ask you Sudhir, appart from that silly sati comment of mine, have I deliberately made any negitive statement about Hinduism? Altho I read that booklet by Dr.Chattergy, did I claim that YES THIS IS HINDUISM! No, I gave hinduism the benefit of the doubt and am still researching it. oh forget it kutte ki dum teri to teri
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:06 AM)
@ Perigrine The arabs declared war becasue they knew they were going to be booted out of their land. This is the same reason why the Native INdians of the US took up armed resistance agaisnt the European settlers. Besides the Jewish millitants were cheerefully slaughtering and ethnically cleaning Palestine EVEN BEFORE ISRAEL GOT INDEPENDENCE. The town of Jafna was taken in April 1948 be Jewish millitants who drove out 15,000 arabs by slaughtering refinery workers (source: Dr. Finklestein, "Image and Reality")
Ghoki : Typical Lotastaani Madrassah distorted view of History. M’boy the Three Arab Armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria (possibly with other Arab Contents) invaded Israel just after the State of Israel was “Declared” as a Nation in the UN. These Arab Soldiers were promised the “Beautiful Daughters of the Yahoodi” to warm their Beds. I can believe this as Pakistani POWs in each of the Four Wars with India have confessed to their main motivation – The Daughters of the Hindus. The Israel Jew fought – not out of superiority over the Muslim Arabs – due to their having no other alternative i.e. they had their “Backs to the Wall – I mean the Sea”. It is sad that there are 57 Islamic Countries but none agrees to accept Muslims from another Muslim Country. You can immigrate to India and beome an Indian Citizen in due course of time. However, as a Lotastaani you can be born in Saudi Arabi but you will not get Saudi Citizenship. Once the Three Arab Armies Invaded Israel what do you expect the Israelis to do. Behave like the secularist Hindus of India? The Jews had to SURVIVE. They survived as a Nation. But a Lotasattani cannot understand that – can he?
QUOTE
And yes, I agree with you. Aurangzeb was a b@st@rd and so were the other Moghuls. I personally don't like any of them since they mostly drunken sexaholics, but that is just my opinion. However I belive to "Live in the past is to die in the present". Keep that in mind. And I view Pakistan the same way I view Israel.
Aurangzab and his kind were Islamaholics not sexaholics. Every sIlamic “Transgressor” Slaughtered Hindus, Sikhs and Jains as well as Destroyed their Temples IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Please do not distort the facts by saying otherwise. How very mystifying that the Holy Koran states “Allah Detests the Transgressor” or some such words. How kind of you to state “However I believe to "Live in the past is to die in the present". Keep that in mind : You are allowed to live in the Past of the Destruction of the Babri Mosque. I am not allowed to dwell on the Millions of Hindu Temples being Destroyed. You are a typical Madrassah Fanatic. You want to limit “the Present and the Past” to your own standards. I am sorry that due to your being a Shia or an Ahmedi you were forced to migrate from Lotastaan to the UAE and now have had to go to Canada to survive. However, this does not mean that you should criticize the ways of a Country which is “For the People”. Your Lotastaan is for the “Leaders”. By the way : I may not agree with all the Policies of Israel but for Gods sake do not compare Israel – a Peoples’ Country – to Lotastaan which is a “Land of Leaders”. Admit you are of “Lotastaani” Origin. We will welcome you with open arms provided you are prepared to keep your “Lotastaani Gali Galoch” to yourself and not exhibit on our Forum as well as follow the norms of this Forum Cheers
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 01:53 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 02:19 AM)
kutte ki dum teri to teri
Gouki : Lotastaanis are like "Kuttey ki Doum Teri He Teri" Cheers
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 01:56 PM
what's a "Lotastaanis "?
Posted by: Sunder Jul 23 2004, 01:57 PM
I am beginning to love this. One Ghori comes in, and the whole thread has (rightfully) become a Islam bashing thread. If Islam were to be dissected, like the Six schools of Indian philosophy, then there is scope for reform. Just as bauddha and jaina was refuted, like Sankhya-yoga, and mimamsa, I would like to hear criticizms on the Quran from Gouki. Gouki, what do you think the so-called "moderate" muslims (followers of islam, not traitors) can do to rid islam of the terrorism aspect? Who were the main reformers of Islam who had brought the cult to mainstream ? Can you name a few?
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 02:00 PM
@ Peregrine Your view suscribes to the typical Zionist propoganda fairytale. You failed to adress my point about the zionist expansion BEFORE may 1948 as documented by Dr. Finklestein. The rest of your post deals with silly stereotypes on which I shall not waste my time on. Even the Israeli Historian Benny Morris acknoledged Israels war crimes prior to May 1948.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 02:02 PM
Sunder:
QUOTE
and the whole thread has (rightfully) become a Islam bashing thread.
Oh yes, Islam bashing is definately the in thing to do. Join the party Sunder.
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 02:19 AM)
I ask you Sudhir, appart from that silly sati comment of mine, have I deliberately made any negitive statement about Hinduism?
Gouki: Upteen number of times you've menitoned about "Hindutva propaganda". There is a Hindutva thread on this board please post there and I'll respond.
QUOTE
ALtho mine was an honest mistake which I acknolege.
Couldn't help notice that did went to extent of digging up a link on this while you fiegn ignorance on positive Israeli quotes pertaining to peace in Middle east or B Raman (when a link was provided to you) or the names of mughal emperors who propogated islam using sword despite having all the wealth.
QUOTE
QUOTE
or prejudging people here be accussing them to be "bigots" on your very first day of posting here, it will come back.
When I get over the hypocrisy of your above statement, I'll respond.
I'm merely pointing to you making judgement of people you've never met or interacted with - or have you in a different avaatar? wink.gif Till then a kettle can keep calling pot black.
QUOTE
Yes, lets label the Muslims as Pro Paki traitors and label Islam as an evil conspiracy theory.
Can't help it if it's a figment of your own imagination. Please point me to my the post saying so.
QUOTE
mentioning their contributions to science and philosophy.
Here's your chance to do so. Please do list it. Maybe we can turn this discussion around.
Posted by: k.ram Jul 23 2004, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 02:32 AM)
Sunder:
QUOTE
and the whole thread has (rightfully) become a Islam bashing thread.
Oh yes, Islam bashing is definately the in thing to do. Join the party Sunder.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 02:11 PM
Gouki, Lets talk about Islam and enlighten us with current event. Do you think beheading a civilian with verses of Koran is Islamic or not?
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 02:18 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:52 AM)
k.Ram, last time I checked, INDIAN society wasn't so tolerant of gays and adulterers.
Gouki, The Punishment in Hinduism For Sodomy and Adultery was being declared as “Malicha” (Malicha - Evil Thoughts, Intend, Deeds) and then Ostracized from Society. Pray tell us the Punishment in the Holy Koran or Islam for Sodomy and Adultery.
QUOTE
And I agree, the SUdan thing should be called a genocide.
You mean Genocide of Non-Muslims by …… On Yes – Muslims. Cheers
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 02:20 PM
Sudhir
QUOTE
Upteen number of times you've menitoned about "Hindutva propaganda".
So you equate Hinduva with Hinduism? Your saying that they are the same thing? Suppose there is a secular Hindu who objects to Hindutva, would you regard him a true Hindu?
QUOTE
Couldn't help notice that did went to extent of digging up a link on this while you fiegn ignorance on positive Israeli quotes pertaining to peace in Middle east
I dug up that link because I didn't want to entirely rely on Dr. Chattergy's word.
QUOTE
I'm merely pointing to you making judgement of people you've never met or interacted with
I'm interacting with them on this forum. The internet is marvelous in that regard. Most bigots tend to keep mum in real life due to a fear of sounding racist. But on the net, where their identities are masked, it all comes out. @ k.Ram Discussing Islam's values and ideas from a secular viewpoint is acceptable to me. What I find unacceptable is when people use lables such as "terrorist" and "evil religion" in the debate. Intellectuals refrain from using such emotionally charged labels.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 02:22 PM
@ mudy No it's not Islamic. @ perengerie I haven't read about the Islamic law pertaining to homosexuality. I might be wrong, but could be execution, its an old semitic custom dating to biblical times. whats a lotastani?
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 02:23 PM
QUOTE
The internet is marvelous in that regard. Most bigots tend to keep mum in real life due to a fear of sounding racist. But on the net,
You are a good example. If it is unislamic why there is no Fatwa against them. Why Muslims are not organising 100s of conference against these brutality?
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 02:31 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 02:26 AM)
what's a "Lotastaanis "?
Gouki, Aap Ki Seva Mein Prustoot Hai - You will need to be "Logged In" : user posted image LOTASTAANI – INHABITANT OF THE LAND OF LOTAS Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Sudhir Jul 23 2004, 02:35 PM
QUOTE
So you equate Hinduva with Hinduism? Your saying that they are the same thing? Suppose there is a secular Hindu who objects to Hindutva, would you regard him a true Hindu?
There is a thread devoted to Hindutva. Please read it. Then we'll discuss it there. You can start of by using the current posts in that thread and agree or disagree with whatever we have up there till date.
QUOTE
Intellectuals refrain from using such emotionally charged labels
Exactly my point with your 'bigot' comment. Time to practice what you are preaching here.
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 23 2004, 02:38 PM
QUOTE (Gouki @ Jul 24 2004, 01:47 AM)
Sudhir, I did. For every instance I reffered to Babri, people have made 10 refrenced to Hindu temples being destroyed. You still cannot see thru the Britsh scheme can you? Too bad.
Gouki : Babri Mosque IS THE ONLY ONE. Destruction of Hindu, Sikh and Jain Temples is in Millions. P. S. Do you mean that the Islamic Invaders-Transgressors Slaughtered Hindus-Sikhs-Jains and Destroyed their Temples in Millions at the instigation of the British? Cheers
Posted by: Kumar Jul 23 2004, 02:50 PM
I do not know why we are allowing the discussion on Hinduism in this thread. This is a thread on Islam. I think all posts mentioning Hindutva or any other fictitious concept on Hinduism should be deleted. This is really getting annoying. There is nothing in Hindu society, which is even remotely close to what is Islamic fanaticism. There is only one way for peace to happen between followers of Islam and followers of Hindu philosophy. Followers of Islam will have to accept the fact that their religion needs to be reformed. Or else, we will have nothing but war. After listening to people like Gouki, I see the slim chance for peace. All it will boil down to war for survival, a war to save your way of life from fanatic Islam. If you do not like what I say about Islam, solution is simple, reform.
Posted by: Gouki Jul 23 2004, 03:12 PM
@ Sudhir You see Peregrine's last post? That is bigotry. If you still think I need furthur justification in using the term do let me know. @ Kumar excuse me? You're blaming me? So far I've seen nothing but anti Muslim hate rhetoric come out of the hindus of this forum and you still have the audacity to blame ME? Yes I believe that Islam requires reformation, but you people have your obligations too. The Moghuls are dead and lets leave them in the graveyards instead of dragging them into contemporary politics. What would have us do, put our heads underneath your boots and beg for forgiveness? Or would you rather we pack up and leave? I cannot believe the arrogance of some of you. You quote some of the most Anti Islam authors, have not actually studied the Islamic sources firsthand and then you complain when I get angry? A secular debate about religious ethos is fine with me but unjust labelling and slander moves into the category of racism. Jesus Christ, I'm glad I'm in Toronto.
Posted by: Kumar Jul 23 2004, 03:29 PM
Gouki, You are seeing it wrong. There is no anti-Moslem or anti-anything on this thread. We understand our obligations. That is why we do not go around killing babies or slitting throats of unarmed civilians in the name of religion. Hindu society is not perfect but it offers far better human face than Islam. You do not need to put your heads under my boot. A simple apology would do. If you want to pack and leave then it is your choice. No more discussion about Hinduism ok Gouki? Lets focus on Islam. That is what this thread is all about Islam.
Posted by: Mudy Jul 23 2004, 03:31 PM
Moguls are dead but atrocities of Islam are not dead. Only difference in place of sword they are using suicide bombers and planes. Yes, i am talking of today. Tomorrow it will be same, more suicide bombers. Last month two Hindu brothers were beheaded in Kashmir. Why? Why Islam preach barbarism? Don't tell me Koran say other way round. Why Islamist consider killing of Kuffir by halal will bring 72 houris and garden of Dates. Don't tell me they are handful. Nothing had changed. Yes telling Hindu bigot is very easy, look inside your heart and religion and remove hatred towards other. Facts come everyday. One should never forget history, lesson learnt from past always come handy. Look what happened in 1947. Trusting Jinnah, create ion of Pakistan for Muslims. Should we trust now Muslim league of India?
Posted by: Mudy Jul 24 2004, 10:27 PM
Violent Videos Found in Frankfurt Islamic School Police officials in Frankfurt on Thursday said they found violent and degrading videos during last weekend's raid of an Islamic school belonging to a Moroccan cultural association. Prosecutors had said that the raid occurred at the al-Taqwa mosque on Sunday after a 9-year-old told her teacher that she and other children had been shown violent videos calling for a "holy war against unbelievers," including one video showing a beheading. "What we saw on the video is, in our view, inciting people," said Frankfurt police spokesman Peter Liebeck. "It glorifies holy war." Liebeck said that someone claimed to have bought the video at the Frankfurt mosque, which is why the search was conducted. Police said it could take weeks to fully investigate the confiscated data, mostly because the Arabic texts have to be translated into German. Police Raid Islamic School in Frankfurt Authorities raided the Islamic school of a Moroccan cultural association in Frankfurt on Sunday, searching for violent and degrading videos, including one allegedly showing a person being decapitated. (July 12, 2004) www.dw-world.de/english/0,, 1432_A_1268444_1_A,00.html www.dw-world.de/english/0..._A,00.html
Posted by: Viren Jul 26 2004, 07:37 AM
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040726/asp/nation/story_3542949.asp?headline=Rights~for~women~in~model~nikaahnama
QUOTE
Any Muslim who is of sane mind can draw up a private nikaahnama that will be valid for a particular marriage and in a court of law, says Akhtar. But these two nikaahnamas have been intended for adoption by the community in general. They take a moderate, liberal stand, hoping to bypass the problem of triple talaq without calling for its abolition. The moderates, an emerging voice in the community, feel that a direct call for the ban of the practice — it has been abolished by every Islamic country and is valid in India only — may alienate certain sections of the community, as it has the sanction of Islamic law, though not of the Quran or Prophet Mohammed. The law board has also drafted a model nikaahnama, but that is toothless and disappointing, say law board members privately. But given the authority of the board within the community, Naheed hopes that it approves of her nikaahnama or any other “forward-looking” one, because that would be essential for acceptance from the community.
Posted by: k.ram Jul 27 2004, 10:17 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/nhack25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/25/ixhome.html
Posted by: k.ram Jul 27 2004, 10:23 AM
http://www.canadafreepress.com/cover_storys2.htm
Posted by: k.ram Jul 27 2004, 10:26 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2238321.stm
Posted by: k.ram Jul 27 2004, 10:30 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040722/COWENT22/Columnists/Columnist?author=Margaret+Wente
Posted by: Viren Jul 28 2004, 06:39 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2238321.stm
QUOTE
A conservative Muslim body in India has gone to the High Court to challenge the legal age of marriage, which currently stands at 18. The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board insists that in family matters the country's Muslims should be subject only to Islamic law, known as Sharia. It maintains that it is supported by a 1937 act upholding Muslims' right to be guided by this law
Posted by: Bhootnath Jul 28 2004, 07:13 AM
> Two Canadian Terror Sites Shut Down And gouki is missing on the forum ... Ya allah .. > A conservative Muslim body in India has gone to the High Court to challenge the legal age of marriage, which currently stands at 18. These islamic retards want to lower the age to 13. I am sure Doctors will help their claim by talking abt early inset of puberty .. all for money and secular honour&dignity.... next time a muslim women is raped perhaps she shld have 4 ppl to spuuprt her claim !!
Posted by: Viren Jul 28 2004, 07:14 AM
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=34&page=3
Posted by: shiv Jul 28 2004, 11:07 PM
QUOTE
Fatima says: "Muslim personal law says you can marry at 12, so I didn't see a problem with it. There are lots of bad things in society these days, so the sooner a girl gets married, the better." The family are insisting in the High Court that Muslims are entitled to follow Islamic Sharia law. They say this means allowing weddings any time after puberty, which comes earlier for most girls than boys. Fatima's father-in-law, Hakkim Sajjad, believes there are sound reasons for this. He says: "Women are like creeper plants that latch onto any tree they find - whether it's a good tree or a bad tree. Once they get to puberty they are always in danger of falling into bad ways."
rocker.gif Aha!! This father in law seems to know a LOT about wimmwn - "Women are like creeper plants" "Good tree bad tree: "Good muslim bad muslim" "good woman bad woman" "bad kafir worse kafir" I love the excuse that says "There are lots of bad things in society these days, so the sooner a girl gets married, the better" Is this sn islamic thing - using an unrelated example to justify something? "bad society. so marry at 12" "creepers are blind so marry at 12" "Hindu stories talk of killing - therfore Islam allows killing" "Respect women" and lust after peach complexioned boys bottoms? Why not? Hindus wrote Kamasutra. "My fly is open? So what - your armpit stinks"
Posted by: Peregrine Jul 29 2004, 12:26 AM
From the Sunday Telegraph – A Subscription Site : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=AB2PR1HLSRMWXQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/07/25/do2504.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=53083 In 1748, the novelist Horace Walpole had cause to draw attention, in a letter, to the outrageous behaviour in France of Bonnie Prince Charlie, the exiled leader of 1745's failed Jacobite revolt. Prince Charles Edward Stuart was terrorising Louis XV - the rebellion's mentor, on whom Charles relied for everything - with endless threats and the most insolent demands. Walpole could not help remarking on the narrowness of Britain's escape. "What a mercy," he wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, the then Prime Minister, "that we had not him here!" If, said Walpole, the Pretender was prepared to bully the government of France, even though he was entirely in its power, what would he have done with a British government under his control? And what, I have been asking in recent articles, would Islam's equally insouciant "exiles" in Britain do with a UK government in their power? Indications from the Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill by-elections were not encouraging. Konrad Henlein, the Nazi leader of the Sudeten Germans - whose cynical attitude to liberal, democratic, minority-friendly inter-war Czechoslovakia offers a metaphor for what we face - once observed: "We must always demand so much that we are never satisfied." He wouldn't have got very far in Leicester South, where the idea of refusing Muslim voters any part of their global Jihadi agenda was so distant from the candidates' minds that they couldn't even wait to be asked. However, my fellow Telegraph writer Jenny McCartney is plagued by a very different anxiety. She is deeply concerned for, not because of, Britain's burgeoning Muslim population. It is the persecuted Jews of the Third Reich, not its Nazis, to whom we should compare this notoriously gifted, useful and self-effacing group, she has written in her column of July 18. Jenny sees in the revulsion for Islam displayed by the British National Party an echo of the anti-Semitism to which hideous German publications like Der Sturmer gave vent. Though why she has to ransack back numbers of hoary Fascist tradesheets when almost every mainstream Muslim paper in the world today is full of loathsome anti-Jewish rants and images isn't clear. "In the miserable event" of "an al-Qaeda attack in Britain", she wrote last week - which repeated warnings from our Government have termed inevitable - "there is little doubt in my mind that assaults on peaceful, law-abiding British Muslims would increase". Well, it's good to know that, as the rest of us hug our bottles of Evian in the irradiated ruins, mourning thousands of dead, Jenny will be lying awake at night worrying that someone might drop a dog poo through the letterbox of her local balti house. Such outrages, she warns, will be "fanned by an increasingly hysterical rhetoric - already in place - that encourages non-Muslim Britons to see each and every Muslim citizen as a threat". Whose rhetoric is that exactly? The Guardian newspaper is the Bible - perhaps one should say the Koran? - of Islamo-fascist Britain. However, it has recently been lending its opinion pages to one Fuad Nahdi, a leading Islamic "moderate" who publishes Q-News, a magazine for young UK Muslims. When two British Muslims launched a suicide attack in Israel, this is what he wrote in The Guardian of May 2, 2003: "I am not surprised by news of Britain's first suicide bombers. What, however, I find astonishing is that it took place in Tel Aviv, not Manchester." He goes on to say, "We should brace ourselves for the forthcoming intifada on the streets of Birmingham and Detroit." Mr Nahdi, who arrived in Britain from Kenya in 1983, is comparing himself and his fellow Muslims here to the Palestinians conducting the second intifada against Israel. In Muslim folklore, the Palestinians are a native people disposessed by Zionist invaders. Mr Nahdi seems not to have grasped that, in Britain, he and the rest of the faithful are the "Jewish settlers", we, the usurped Palestinians. If anybody is going to mount an intifada against the invader, it will be us. Jenny writes that those who are afraid of Islam ignore the diversity of the religion, which replicates that of Christianity itself. Christianity too, she writes, has its extremists. To which one might, like St Paul, say, "and what has Christ to do with Baal?" All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. A dog is not the same animal as a cat just because both species are comprised of different breeds. An extreme Christian believes that the Garden of Eden really existed; an extreme Muslim flies planes into buildings - there's a big difference. If, for instance, Muslims meet with defeats in the Balkans (a fact which Jenny finds deeply disturbing), it will certainly not have been for want of trying. It is more a tribute to their incompetence than their humanity. As the Tunisian intellectual Abdelwahab Meddeb points out in his recent book La maladie de l'Islam, Muslims' defeats are a symptom, not a cause, of Muslim decline. When his children became "a thwart, disnatured torment to us all", the scales fell even from King Lear's eyes. But "Jenny Wren" McCartney wishes Britain to feed the cuckoo in its nest because that's what wrens have always done. Doesn't she think that cuckoo looks, and behaves, a little like the "detested kite" to which Lear compared Goneril? Cheers
Posted by: k.ram Aug 3 2004, 04:36 AM
http://thepakistaninewspaper.com/news_detail.php?id=1078
Posted by: acharya Aug 3 2004, 05:50 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-unity/message/2600] Why I Ain't No `Moderate' Muslim By Farish A. Noor [korawa@h...] Reading the recent RAND Corporation report on `Civil Democratic Islam' by Sheryl Bernard, I could not help but feel as if I had fallen into some time-warp and had been transported back to the 19th century when Orientalist scholarship was at its peak and Orientalist scholars and policy-makers like Snouk Hurgronje were working closely with the colonial governments of Western Europe, formulating strategies on how to divide and rule the Muslim world. The fact that the RAND report is meant to serve the needs and aspirations of American power is clear when we look at its contents and see who is was written for: Conceived within the RAND National Security Research Division and commissioned by the Smith Richardson Foundation, this is no mere work of a poor post-grad researcher trying to earn some money to pay off his car loan. RAND's intimate links with US power is well known to all, and the RAND corporation has also worked closely with the US army, as its RAND Air Force Project testifies. The RAND report by Sheryl Bernard divides the global Muslim community according to a typology of Islamist types or categories, ranging from `Fundamentalists' and `Traditionalists' to `Modernists' and `Secularists'. It then proposes a number of crude strategies to get the fundamentalists and traditionalists to slog it out against one another, while keeping the modernists at bay and the secularists close at hand. Interestingly, the report states that moderate Muslims should be kept apart from `left-wingers' and anti- glonbalisation activists who are opposed to US economic, military and political interests. The overall aim, as the report puts it, is to `find strategic partners' in the Muslim world to help in the promotion of `democratic Islam', which the author hopes will be the antidote to the problem of `militant Islam' (or, as the term is increasingly used today, `Jihadism'). Those who are familiar with the language and discourse of the colonial powers in the 19th century should be familiar with the imperial semantics at work here. Then, as now, crude typologies such as the one being proposed here served the purpose of instrumental fictions that laid the foundations for concrete policies that were in turn applied with vigour. It led to the colonial powers actively seeking compradore agents and clients among the subjugated Muslim masses who could be co-opted into their grand strategies, and then made to play the dubious role of cultural go-betweens and contact points between the colonial masters and their subjects; giving a `Muslim face' to what was really western colonial power imposed by violence and force of arms. (For a contemporary example of this sort of nefarious shadow politics at work, one only has to look at Iraq and Afghanistan.) In the report the author recommends a `mixed approach' in providing `specific types of support to those (Muslim actors or groups) who can influence the outcome in desirable ways'. Just what the `desirable outcome' is becomes clear when the report talks about the need to pacify anti-American elements and currents in the Muslim world that threaten US hegemony and its global projection of power and force. As expected, there are the usual platitudes and lip-service paid to the thorny question of the underlying causes of Muslim anger. Yet a closer reading of the report reveals that the question of the root causes of terror are hardly addressed at all; any more than the role of the US and its foreign policy (most notably its continued support of Israel) in complicating matters on the global stage and fuelling the unrest and chaos in the Muslim world. Rather, the report talks about how US policy should be aimed at promoting `moderate Islamic' currents and ideas and how moderate Muslims should be helped in their struggle to promote democracy in their respective societies. Here lies the crux of the problem: While there is nothing wrong with being a `moderate Muslim' per se, one could argue that moderate Islam cannot and will not be born in the laboratories of US think- tanks and policy institutes. Nor should the US or its allies be so cavalier in their issuance of `fatwas' as to which state or government is `moderate' and which is not, according to its own jaundiced criteria. Thus far we have seen at least three cases where Muslim states have been bestowed the much-coveted honour of being `moderate' Islamic states: Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Yet in all three cases it is clear that the classification of `moderate Muslim state' has more to do with the needs of US foreign policy than any real commitment to moderate Islam on Islamic terms. How, pray tell, can Pakistan be seen to be a moderate Islamic state when it remains fundamentally allied to US strategic goals and when then harassment of Islamist opposition parties and actors has become so routinised? And how can Malaysia be seen to be a moderate Muslim state when repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act which allows for detention without trial remain in place? The classification of Indonesia as a moderate Muslim state is the most baffling of all, when its generals are back in power and military hardliners like Gen Hendropriyono – accused of the slaughter of hundreds in South Sumatra – be made the head of the country's anti- terror unit. `Moderate Islam' can only emerge from within the corpus of Islamic thought and Islamic norms and praxis. It has, in other words, to be a step in the natural evolution of Islamic society itself, on its own terms and at its own pace. Yet the Muslim world today cannot and has not been allowed to evolve on its own due to the constant interference and meddling in its internal affairs by external powers bent on securing tactical leverage as well as protecting their own selfish material interests- be it in the case of oil and gas, or other military-strategic interests. Taken against this context, the RAND report reads as a clumsy, almost farcical document that attempts social engineering at its crudest. No Muslim academic, intellectual or activist worth his or her salt would want to be stained by the Midas touch of such a report, or the contaminating feelers of Washington and its neo-Con coterie. For most Muslims being a `moderate Muslim' means, first and foremost, being committed to the values of democracy and human rights the world over, and opposed to the unilateral militarism and hegemony of the USA. Contrary to what Sheryl Bernard may think, genuine moderate Muslims are the last people she and the USA can turn to for support and patronage. And that's why I ain't no `moderate Muslim' by her standards, and thank God for that!
Posted by: acharya Aug 3 2004, 06:36 PM
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php
Posted by: Sudhir Aug 4 2004, 01:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/04krist.html The virgins are calling you," Mohamed Atta wrote reassuringly to his fellow hijackers just before 9/11. It has long been a staple of Islam that Muslim martyrs will go to paradise and marry 72 black-eyed virgins. But a growing body of rigorous scholarship on the Koran points to a less sensual paradise - and, more important, may offer a step away from fundamentalism and toward a reawakening of the Islamic world. Some Islamic theologians protest that the point was companionship, never heavenly sex. Others have interpreted the pleasures quite explicitly; one, al-Suyuti, wrote that sex in paradise is pretty much continual and so glorious that "were you to experience it in this world you would faint." But now the same tools that historians, linguists and archaeologists have applied to the Bible for about 150 years are beginning to be applied to the Koran. The results are explosive. The Koran is beautifully written, but often obscure. One reason is that the Arabic language was born as a written language with the Koran, and there's growing evidence that many of the words were Syriac or Aramaic. For example, the Koran says martyrs going to heaven will get "hur," and the word was taken by early commentators to mean "virgins," hence those 72 consorts. But in Aramaic, hur meant "white" and was commonly used to mean "white grapes." Some martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown. But the scholar who pioneered this pathbreaking research, using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for security reasons, noted in an e-mail interview that grapes made more sense in context because the Koran compares them to crystal and pearls, and because contemporary accounts have paradise abounding with fruit, especially white grapes. Dr. Luxenberg's analysis, which has drawn raves from many scholars, also transforms the meaning of the verse that is sometimes cited to require women to wear veils. Instead of instructing pious women "to draw their veils over their bosoms," he says, it advises them to "buckle their belts around their hips." Likewise, a reference to Muhammad as "ummi" has been interpreted to mean he was illiterate, making his Koranic revelations all the more astonishing. But some scholars argue that this simply means he was not "of the book," in the sense that he was neither Christian nor Jewish. Islam has a tradition of vigorous interpretation and adjustment, called ijtihad, but Koranic interpretation remains frozen in the model of classical commentaries written nearly two centuries after the prophet's death. The history of the rise and fall of great powers over the last 3,000 years underscores that only when people are able to debate issues freely - when religious taboos fade - can intellectual inquiry lead to scientific discovery, economic revolution and powerful new civilizations. "The taboos are still great" on such Koranic scholarship, notes Gabriel Said Reynolds, an Islam expert at the University of Notre Dame. He called the new scholarship on early Islam "a first step" to an intellectual awakening. But Muslim fundamentalists regard the Koran - every word of it - as God's own language, and they have violently attacked freethinking scholars as heretics. So Muslim intellectuals have been intimidated, and Islam has often been transmitted by narrow-minded extremists. (This problem is not confined to Islam. On my blog, www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, I've been battling with fans of the Christian fundamentalist "Left Behind" series. Some are eager to see me left behind.) Still, there are encouraging signs. Islamic feminists are emerging to argue for religious interpretations leading to greater gender equality. An Iranian theologian has called for more study of the Koran's Syriac roots. Tunisian and German scholars are collaborating on a new critical edition of the Koran based on the earliest manuscripts. And just last week, Iran freed Hashem Aghajari, who had been sentenced to death for questioning harsh interpretations of Islam. "The breaking of the sometimes erroneous bonds in the religious tradition will be the condition for a positive evolution in other scientific and intellectual domains," Dr. Luxenberg says. The world has a huge stake in seeing the Islamic world get on its feet again. The obstacle is not the Koran or Islam, but fundamentalism, and I hope that this scholarship is a sign of an incipient Islamic Reformation - and that future terrorist recruits will be promised not 72 black-eyed virgins, but just a plateful of grapes.
Posted by: Karkala Joishy Aug 4 2004, 02:07 PM
Does Islam have the concept of "sin" in the religion? We have paap and the Christians have sin, what do the Muslims have? Or is the idea that Muslims never sin? biggrin.gif
Posted by: Sunder Aug 4 2004, 02:38 PM
QUOTE (Karkala Joishy @ Aug 5 2004, 02:37 AM)
Does Islam have the concept of "sin" in the religion? We have paap and the Christians have sin, what do the Muslims have? Or is the idea that Muslims never sin? biggrin.gif
Haraam.
Posted by: sridhar k Aug 4 2004, 06:30 PM
Can some one explain what is this PBUH (Peace be upon him) funda. On what context it is used and why?
Posted by: shyam Aug 5 2004, 12:16 PM
QUOTE (sridhar k @ Aug 4 2004, 06:30 PM)
Can some one explain what is this PBUH (Peace be upon him) funda. On what context it is used and why?
It's to add respect whenever a name is mentioned. Sort of like his holiness, her excellency, his highness, etc. Of course we can have our own meaning for the PBUH. It can be "peace be upon him/her" or "piss be upon him/her" depending on in what way you want to use the abbr. specool.gif
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM
The concept of sin in islam is anyone who is a non-muslim or questions any part of the koran, hadiths, prophet, his companions and his family The pre-islamic arabs believed in Allah They did not believe in Mohammed In short sin in islam is anyone who refuses to bow to Mohammed Mohammed Ali of Khilafat fame said that the meanest muslim rapist is a better man than Gandhi
Posted by: shiv Aug 7 2004, 11:54 PM
QUOTE (Karkala Joishy @ Aug 5 2004, 02:37 AM)
Does Islam have the concept of "sin" in the religion?
Well I have two more questions: Is there any pressure, moral or otherwise in Islam to tell the truth? Is there any guideline in Islam that speaks up against killing? It may be considered a digression to speak of Islam in a thread about Islamism, but it seems clear that Islamism is the "core", the "kernel", if you like, of Islam. This is how a person who has all the trappings of Islam can be accused of being unislamic - if he fails to accept/implement the core paranoid discriminatory dictates that one must accept/implement to be truly Islamic. Funnily enough, if you accept the core paranoia and discriminatory rules, you can then remove the external trappings of Islam and live among kafirs, looking like, and behaving like them. In short - you are only a sham muslim no matter how long your beard or how complete your burkha, unless you implicitly accept that everyone else is wrong and that they are all trying to get you, and that you should fight them always.
Posted by: Bhootnath Aug 8 2004, 12:28 AM
Does anybody know , how did "Forward looking , intellectual" Muslim Javed Akhtar divorce his first wife Honey Irani ( a Parsi ) to marry Shabana Azmi ? Did he go why Civil Court route or did he use his right of "Triple Talaq" Its of importance because he seems to be talking abt Triple Talaqs ..removal .. Thx
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Aug 8 2004, 02:24 PM
I am 99% sure that Javed Akhtar talaqed his first wife ---- Islam is unreformable Reproduction is used as a tool of Jihad Islamic reproduction is so fast that re-education is impossible This leaves the kafir with unpleasant choices 1. Convert to islam 2. Die 3. Use islamic methods on muslims 4. Match islamic reproduction so that muslims dont reach critical mass
Posted by: Viren Aug 8 2004, 07:21 PM
Javed Akhtar and his ex Honey (or is it' Daisy Irani) were on TV show together about 2 months ago on Farooq Shaikh's TV interview kinda program ('Jena isi ka naam hai'). Their son Farahan(?) Akhtar recently launched a movie, it was in regards to that. For what was shown, Javed and his ex had a very cordial and friendly relationship with each other.
Posted by: Sudhir Aug 9 2004, 08:56 AM
Time magazine had some interesting statistics few weeks ago. % of muslim population in France =< 6% % of muslim population in Frech jails > 50% France Moves Fast To Expel Muslims Preaching Hatred In Bid to Pre-Empt Terror, Nation Targets 8 Imams; Law Hits Legal Residents Sent to Turkey After 28 Years http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109200641757786030,00.html COURTRY, France -- Mihdat Guler was 17 years old when he moved here from his native Turkey to find work in 1976. Over time, he saved enough money to buy a tidy house in this middle-class Paris suburb, where he lived a quiet life as a legal immigrant with his wife and five children. One afternoon three months ago, Mr. Guler learned he had overstayed his welcome. Police stopped his van as he was returning from selling sewing supplies at an outdoor market and arrested him. Within a few weeks, he was on a flight to Istanbul, unsure when he would see his family again. The French government's accusation: Mr. Guler was preaching hatred and violence against the West at a Muslim prayer room in Paris. It also alleges that he belongs to a group that seeks an Islamic state in Turkey. Mr. Guler denies the government's allegations. If Mr. Guler had been French, he would have had the chance to defend himself at a trial. But as a foreigner, he fell under a 1945 law that allowed the government to deport him as an urgent security threat. France has taken one of the hardest lines of any Western country in fighting Islamic extremism. Other democracies, including the U.S., have been criticized for excessive methods, such as holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But few have been as systematic and zealous as France in attempting to stamp out Islamic militancy. Mr. Guler is one of eight Muslim men France has expelled this year on the ground that they are preachers who foment anti-Western sentiment and violence in their sermons. These imams often have little religious education but a big influence over Muslim youths, the French government says. "Today, one can no longer separate terrorist acts from the words that feed them," Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin recently told the French Council of the Muslim Faith, an organization created last year to represent the interests of France's Muslims. Earlier this year, France passed a law that bars Muslim girls from wearing head scarves at public schools. Its counterterrorism magistrates often round up suspects in broad sweeps and detain them for years without trial. With its new practice of expelling Muslim preachers, France is taking its campaign against extremism one step farther. France's hardball approach comes as Europe faces stark questions about how to integrate its surging Muslim population. Once tiny, it has grown exponentially, fueled by immigration from North Africa and the Middle East and from countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, as well as by higher birth rates in Muslim families. France, with a population of about 60 million, is now home to an estimated five million to seven million Muslims, the most in Western Europe. Other Western European countries with large Muslim communities, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, haven't gone as far as France for fear of undermining basic civil liberties. But the U.K. has recently begun threatening to hold Islamic preachers accountable for their words. In Germany, expulsions require court orders, and courts have been unwilling to send radicals back to countries with questionable human-rights records. Some of the preachers France has deported have challenged their expulsions in court, but only one has had tentative success. France argues that its tough stance pays off: There has been no terrorism on French soil since Algeria's Armed Islamic Group conducted a wave of bombings in Paris in 1995. And France harbored none of the cells that plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S. or the March 11 train bombings in Spain. Yet France's expulsions of preachers raise thorny questions about how far Western democracies should go in trying to pre-empt Islamic terrorism. Some of the men, like Mr. Guler, who is 45, have legally lived in France for decades. Their families are integrated in French society and many of their children are French citizens. The first contingent of Muslims arrived in France in the 1950s and 1960s from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. They helped fill France's demand for cheap factory labor amid the country's post-World War II economic boom. A turning point came in the late 1970s when the government of President Valery Giscard d'Estaing allowed those workers to bring their families to France. That took away an incentive for them to return to their impoverished home countries. Many settled in France for good, sending the number of Muslims soaring. France became aware it had an integration problem in the late 1980s when Muslim girls started coming to school wearing head scarves. That sparked a 15-year debate about whether the country's secular society should tolerate obvious signs of religious affiliation at its public schools, culminating in this year's ban. The new law also prohibits wearing large Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps and other visible religious symbols. With hundreds of mosques springing up across the country, the government took to promoting the notion of a "French Islam," in harmony with France's republican ideals and devoid of foreign theological influences. As a rule, France wants its immigrants to leave their languages and cultural origins behind and become primarily French. But this French Islam has been a difficult concept to put into practice. Of the more than 1,500 imams who lead Friday prayers across France, fewer than 300 have formal religious educations, according to the National Federation of French Muslims. Many hail from countries such as Algeria that are hotbeds of extremism. Schools created in the past decade to educate French imams have produced few graduates. The government has become increasingly concerned that the poorly trained foreign imams are radicalizing people with their virulent sermons. The Madrid train bombings, the first massive Islamist attack in the heart of Europe, convinced Mr. de Villepin, the interior minister, that drastic measures were needed to root out preachings that could spark terrorism, aides say. He ordered a crackdown, building on a few expulsions already carried out by his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy. Expulsion has been legal in France since 1945. But the procedure is usually used against illegal immigrants. Last year, France sent home more than 11,000 illegal aliens. Since the Muslim men it was now targeting were mostly legal residents, the Interior Ministry invoked another part of the 1945 legislation. 'Absolute Emergency' That clause allows the state to expel "in absolute emergency" any foreigner deemed a threat "to the security of the state or public safety." In the past, the clause was mainly used to expel foreigners convicted of violent crimes such as rape or murder who had finished serving their prison terms. The eight preachers France has expelled this year hail from four countries: Algeria, Turkey, Morocco and Egypt. In April, the Interior Ministry expelled Abdelkader Yahia Cherif, a 35-year-old Algerian who preached at a prayer room in Brest, a port city on France's northwestern coast. France alleged that Mr. Cherif was recruiting young Arab men to a radical brand of Islam known as Salafism, which advocates a literal, inflexible interpretation of the Quran. The government contended Mr. Cherif had incited violence in his neighborhood since arriving four years earlier, including a fire at a town hall. The order justifying his expulsion said Mr. Cherif had rejoiced over the Madrid bombings in sermons, and cited an interview he gave to a newspaper in which he said there was "no absolute proof" Islamists had been involved in either the Sept. 11 or the Madrid attacks. David Rajjou, Mr. Cherif's lawyer, says his client acknowledges being a Salafist but denies the other accusations. Mr. Cherif didn't intend to excuse the Sept. 11 or Madrid attacks but only to question whether Islamists were really behind them, the lawyer says. The Beating of Women As the expulsions accelerated, one drew special notice: that of Abdelkader Bouziane, an Algerian from Lyon. Mr. Bouziane, who has fathered 16 children by two Algerian wives, triggered a public uproar by endorsing polygamy and the beating of women in an interview with a French magazine shortly after the Madrid attacks. Mr. Bouziane, 52, was already the subject of a pending expulsion order for allegedly issuing a religious order on March 28, 2003, calling on Muslims to target U.S. interests in France, and for having links to suspected terrorists. After the interview, the government rushed his expulsion, sending him out of the country in April. But within a few weeks he was back, after a French court deemed the reasons for expelling him as too vague. Mr. Bouziane's lawyer, Mahmoud Hebia, says his client denies the government's allegations. He adds that Mr. Bouziane, who remains in France, maintains his comments were distorted in the magazine and doesn't personally condone beating women. Angered by his return, France's parliament has since amended the 1945 law to allow expulsion of any foreigner who incites "discrimination, hatred or violence against a certain person or group of persons." In the absence of trials, it's hard to determine the danger posed by the expelled men. After ordering the expulsion of another Algerian imam from Lyon in January, the Interior Ministry appeared vindicated when, within days, he was arrested by counterterrorism magistrates for allegedly aiding a plot to stage a chemical attack. That imam, Chellali Benchellali, is now in prison in France. The expulsion of Mr. Guler, the Turkish sewing-supply salesman, was a "very efficient and expedient tactic" for the government compared with prosecuting a case, says his lawyer, Thierry Meurou. Prayer and Caliphate Mr. Guler declined to comment for this article. He is one of 400,000 Turks who live in France. Though he immigrated 28 years ago, he never sought French citizenship. Instead, he obtained a residency card renewable every 10 years. All five of his children were born and raised in France. "France is our country," says his oldest son, Abdurrahman, 22. In 1988, the elder Mr. Guler became president of an organization that rents a prayer room in central Paris. The prayer room, in a rundown building in a racially mixed neighborhood, initially catered to Turkish immigrants. It now draws a diverse crowd that includes Arabs. On Saturday, May 1, policemen pulled over Mr. Guler's white Ford van and jailed him. He soon learned that the Interior Ministry had ordered his expulsion. With help from a lawyer, he filed a request for political asylum. Though denied, it delayed the government's plans by forcing a review of his case. On May 19, Mr. Guler appeared before a judge in an administrative court. There, the Interior Ministry laid out its case. It rested on a 10-page memo by the Renseignements Generaux, a domestic intelligence service. There were no wiretaps, pictures, witness testimony or other evidence in the case file. Such memos are called note blanches, or white notes, because they aren't signed or dated and don't cite their sources. The memo didn't implicate Mr. Guler in terrorist acts or plots but made a number of accusations, including: that he incited hatred of Western societies and Israel in sermons; that he allowed to be distributed at the prayer room Islamist newsletters that glorified jihad; and that he is a member of the Caliphate State, a group that seeks to overthrow Turkey's secular government and replace it with an Islamic state. Mr. Meurou and Mr. Guler's son, Abdurrahman, deny that Mr. Guler ever preached at the prayer room. He didn't consider himself knowledgeable enough to be an imam, they say. Mr. Meurou acknowledges jihad newsletters made their way around the prayer room but says Mr. Guler can't be held responsible for everything that went on there. He says Mr. Guler admits knowing the Caliphate State's leader, Metin Kaplan, as a family friend, but denies any involvement in his group. Based in Cologne, Germany, the Caliphate State calls for the restoration of Turkey's Caliphate, the Islamic theocracy that ruled much of the Muslim world until the Ottoman empire collapsed after World War I. It is banned in Turkey and Germany. Its leader, Mr. Kaplan, was arrested by German police in 1999 for inciting the killing of a rival Islamic cleric. He served four years in prison. Since his release last year, Turkey has been seeking Mr. Kaplan's extradition on charges that he masterminded a failed 1998 terrorist plot, but Germany's courts have balked. At the hearing, the judge asked Mr. Guler whether French law took precedence over Islamic law. Mr. Guler gave an ambiguous answer, according to people present. "There's a polemic there, Your Honor," he said. "In Quranic law, God is higher than French law but, if I say that, I know I'll be punished by French law." The judge ruled in the government's favor. Mr. Guler made plans to return to Turkey on his own, but the Interior Ministry moved faster. Three days after the hearing, policemen seized him at his house and put him on a flight to Istanbul. Upon arrival, Mr. Guler was briefly questioned by Turkish police, then released. He now lives in his native town of Yozgat. A representative of the Turkish embassy in Paris says Mr. Guler wasn't a wanted man in Turkey and hadn't been convicted of any crime in France, so there was no basis to detain him. Mr. Guler's wife and children remain in France and hope he will be able to return. He missed Abdurrahman's wedding in June, but the family called him on a cellphone during the reception. The son has taken over his father's sewing-supply business to help support the family and pay the mortgage on their house. Mr. Meurou has gathered 50 affidavits from friends, neighbors and customers and plans to fight the government's decision. The appeal process could take years.
Posted by: k.ram Aug 9 2004, 09:01 AM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-acanmuslims07aug07,0,5267465.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
Posted by: Viren Aug 9 2004, 12:37 PM
Saw on PBS:http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/noujaim.html They mention on some Al Jazeera reporters being denied access in over 15 of the 22 odd Arab/muslim nation. One senior Al Jazeera scribe is even banned by Saudi from doing his Haj pilgrimage! ohmy.gif
Posted by: rajesh_g Aug 9 2004, 01:17 PM
While growing up (and watching bollywood movies mostly) the number "786" used to crop up all the time - it was also said that if you have a vehicle that has licence plate or phone or anything like that with number 786 it was worth a lot (we gujjus r like that onlee) - what does that number signify ?
Posted by: k.ram Aug 9 2004, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (rajesh_g @ Aug 10 2004, 01:47 AM)
While growing up (and watching bollywood movies mostly) the number "786" used to crop up all the time - it was also said that if you have a vehicle that has licence plate or phone or anything like that with number 786 it was worth a lot (we gujjus r like that onlee) - what does that number signify ?
I am not sure, but long time ago, when I used 786 one of my Muslim friends got really irritated and annoyed. He said if a muslim were to do that, it would be considered blasphemy or something. Somehow the number 786 comes to Krishna or Rama. I have no clue how, and don't quote me on it laugh.gif
Posted by: Viren Aug 9 2004, 01:55 PM
QUOTE (rajesh_g @ Aug 9 2004, 04:17 PM)
While growing up (and watching bollywood movies mostly) the number "786" used to crop up all the time - it was also said that if you have a vehicle that has licence plate or phone or anything like that with number 786 it was worth a lot (we gujjus r like that onlee) - what does that number signify ?
Remember the 786 fad had caught on after the movie 'Deewar' (the original one with Amitabh, Shashi Kapoor etc) which had Amitabh wearing the dock worker badge # 786. Believe this Deewar was based on the life of Haji Mastan - the underworld Don of Bombay in 70s.
QUOTE
http://www.submission.org/miracle/786.html "786" is the total value of the letters of "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim". In Arabic there are two methods of arranging letters. One method is the most common method known as the alphabetical method. Here we begin with Alif, ba, ta, tha etc. The other method is known as the Abjad method or ordinal method. In this method each letter has an arithmetic value assigned to it from one to one thousand. The letters are arranged in the following order: Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalaman, Sa'fas, Qarshat, Sakhaz, Zazagh. This arrangement was done, most probably in the 3rd century of Hijrah during the 'Abbasid period, following other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean etc. If you take the numeric values of all the letters of the Basmalah, according to the Abjad order, the total will be 786. In the Indian subcontinent the Abjad numerals became quite popular. Some people, mostly in India and Pakistan, use 786 as a substitute for Bismillah. They write this number to avoid writing the name of Allah or the Qur'anic ayah on ordinary papers. This tradition is not from the time of the Prophet -peace be upon him- or his Sahabah. It developed much later, perhaps during the later 'Abbasid period. We do not know of any reputable Imams or Jurists who used this number instead of the Bismillah.
Posted by: Sunder Aug 9 2004, 02:12 PM
QUOTE (k.ram @ Aug 10 2004, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (rajesh_g @ Aug 10 2004, 01:47 AM)
While growing up (and watching bollywood movies mostly) the number "786" used to crop up all the time - it was also said that if you have a vehicle that has licence plate or phone or anything like that with number 786 it was worth a lot (we gujjus r like that onlee) - what does that number signify ?
I am not sure, but long time ago, when I used 786 one of my Muslim friends got really irritated and annoyed. He said if a muslim were to do that, it would be considered blasphemy or something. Somehow the number 786 comes to Krishna or Rama. I have no clue how, and don't quote me on it laugh.gif
Not sure about Rama, but one of the explanations I knew is from Shaktha. All Sri Vidya upasakas know of the Panchadasakshari (fifteen Syllables.) These I will not mention here but suffice to say that these fifteen are split into three KOOTAMs, as follows: 1) Vakh-bhava kootam - starts with KA, and has FIVE syllables. 2) Kamaraja kootam - starts with HA, and has SIX syllables. 3) Shakthi kootam - starts with SA, and has FOUR syllables. Each of the above, is prefixed with a BEEJA aksharam. (This also I cannot mention here, for it is to be learned from a qualified Guru.) When you say the three with AUM, you get the following numbers. 1) Vakh-bhava kootam - 1 + 1 + 5 = 7 2) Kamaraja kootam - 1 + 1 + 6 = 8 3) Shakthi kootam - 1 + 1 + 4 = 6 I am not sure how other religions consider 786 as holy, but in Shaktham 564, 675 or 786 is quite significant.
Posted by: raj Aug 10 2004, 08:38 PM
Prophet of Doom http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html
Posted by: k.ram Aug 12 2004, 01:38 PM
Netherlands increases penalties for terrorist crimes www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-12 05:12:18 BRUSSELS, Aug. 11 (Xinhuanet) -- The Dutch government has revised the penalties for terrorist activities to conform with European guidelines, Radio Netherlands reported on Wednesday. New Dutch legislation has prescribed longer jail sentences for killing, kidnapping and hijacking when these crimes are carried out with terrorist intent. However, the radio did not give specific figures to illustrate how further the punishments would be for terrorist crimes. It said that conspiracy to commit a serious terrorist crime andrecruiting for the Jihad are now separate crimes with their own penalties in the country. The aim is to make it easier to prosecute terrorist networks, according to the radio. Enditem
Posted by: k.ram Aug 12 2004, 01:47 PM
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24995
Posted by: k.ram Aug 12 2004, 01:51 PM
Economics and Islam By VIRGINIA POSTREL Published: August 12, 2004 HE 9/11 Commission report pointedly criticizes the idea of a generic threat from terrorism. "The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific," the commission writes. "It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." Islamists, who favor political rule based on Islamic principles, see liberal Western societies, particularly the United States, as godless and barbarous. They argue that the Muslim world has fallen behind the West economically and militarily because Muslims have strayed from the pure religious practice of Muhammad's time. As the commission report suggests, Americans know this theocratic ideology primarily as a spur to terrorism, not as a set of ideas and policies worthy of critical examination. But Islamists do offer economic and social prescriptions that can be subjected to the same analytical and empirical scrutiny as any other policies. That scrutiny is particularly important for Muslim countries where Islamists play a significant role in politics. In a new book, "Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism" (Princeton University Press), Timur Kuran, professor of economics and law and the King Faisal professor of Islamic thought and culture at the University of Southern California, looks at the cluster of ideas known as Islamic economics. This concept, he notes, is a 20th-century one, developed in India before independence, when many Muslims worried that they would become an oppressed minority in a Hindu-ruled state. Some feared that Muslims might be so marginalized that they would lose their identity. One response was Muslim nationalism, which led to the creation of Pakistan. Another was cultural separatism, which was promoted by Sayyid Abul-Ala Mawdudi, the founder of Pakistani Islamism. Islamic economics was one of many terms - including Islamic sociology, Islamic democracy and Islamic constitutionalism - that Mawdudi used to give Western concepts a Muslim identity. The goal, Professor Kuran said in an interview, was "to prove to Indians, but also to the world at large, that Muslims had a completely different lifestyle: to be a Muslim is to live differently." In the 1940's, he said, nobody really knew what Islamic economics was. Historically, Muslims did not have distinctive economic practices. In recent decades, Islamic economics has come to mean three things, all supposedly rooted in the "golden age" of seventh-century Arabia: a ban on interest, a wealth tax known as zakat, and honesty and altruism in commercial dealings. In his book, Professor Kuran compares the ideal versions of these practices with the reality. Not surprisingly, he finds that in economic life even the most promising ideas tend to be modified, if not corrupted entirely. That is especially true in countries with weak civil societies and legal systems. Take Islamic banking, which spread with the booming oil wealth of the 1970's. Instead of charging interest, Islamic banks are supposed to share profits and losses with the enterprises they finance. If you read an Islamic bank's charter, Professor Kuran said, "you will say, 'What a magnificent institution this is - exactly what the Middle East needs.' " Islamic banks are supposed to act like venture capital funds, investing in good ideas from people who do not have the connections or collateral to get loans from conventional banks. But Islamic banks learned the hard way that risk sharing does not work in countries where businesses keep false accounting records. "Many people came to borrow money with wonderful ideas, and they just walked away with the money," Professor Kuran said. The banks could not reliably audit the books, and if they took a client to court, the business would just claim a loss. Consequently, the banks all started charging what amounted to interest for loans. The most common way around the interest ban is known as murabaha. The bank buys a capital good, a computer, say, for a client, who agrees to buy it back, with a markup, at a particular time in the future. In effect, the markup represents interest. Islamic banks also invest in debt securities and pay depositors returns that fluctuate with prevailing interest rates. They act like money market funds. "A minuscule portion - generally well under 5 percent - of the assets of Islamic banks consist of loans based on genuine profit and loss sharing," writes Professor Kuran. He argues that the Koran's famous ban on "riba" is not, in fact, a ban on ordinary interest, which moneylenders have charged throughout Islamic history. Riba, he writes, was a pre-Islamic practice in which a "borrower saw his debt double following a default and redouble if he defaulted again." Riba often left borrowers enslaved until they paid off their debts. As with modern bankruptcy law, banning riba limited the penalties for default. Islamic banks and businesses have their merits. In rapidly growing cities, they often provide valuable social services and give newcomers a trustworthy network of commercial contacts. In theory, an "Islamic subeconomy" could serve specific religious needs, just as halal butchers (or kosher ones, in Jewish communities) do. But the positive effects of these organizations are undercut by their broader agenda. Islamic economists not only want their own banks, Professor Kuran writes. They "desire new regulations that would force all banks to limit themselves to variable earnings and commitments.'' "And they want interest-based banking outlawed." Islamic economics, he writes, "has promoted the spread of antimodern, and in some respects deliberately anti-Western, currents of thought all across the Islamic world." Strangely, the Islamist version of history eliminates everything from the mid-seventh century to the colonial period. Islamists ignore the many examples of advanced Muslim societies. "One need only think about the high periods of the Abbasid Caliphate, Muslim Spain, Safavid Iran, the Ottoman Empire, and Mughal India," Professor Kuran writes. He began researching Islamic economic history after realizing that Islamist accounts omit so much of it. "I felt that they did not understand the immense strengths of that civilization," he says, "and they were in no position to understand what went wrong." Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Consciousness" (HarperCollins).
Posted by: acharya Aug 18 2004, 03:51 PM
During this period, a new type of "Muslims," munafiqin (hypocrites), had begun to appear. Though signs of duplicity had been noticed during the last days at Makkah, they took a different shape at Al-Madinah. At Makkah there were some people who professed Islam to be true but were not prepared to abide by the consequences of this profession and to sacrifice their worldly interests and relations and bear the afflictions which inevitably follow the acceptance of this creed. But at Al-Madinah different kinds of munafiqin (hypocrites) began to appear. There were some who had entered the Islamic fold merely to harm it from within. There were others who were surrounded by Muslims and, therefore, had become "Muslims" to safeguard their worldly interests. They, therefore, continued to have relations with the enemies so that if the latter became successful, their interests should remain secure. There were still others who had no strong conviction of the truth of Islam but had embraced it along with their clans. Lastly, there were those who were intellectually convinced of the truth of Islam but did not have enough moral courage to give up their former traditions, superstitions and personal ambitions and live up to the Islamic moral standards and make sacrifice in its way.
Posted by: acharya Aug 18 2004, 04:41 PM
Muslim reactions to the shuddhi campaign - ii By Yoginder Sikand http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01022001/Art25.htm The success of the Aryas in their campaign among the Malkanas led them on to attempt to spread their work among several other neo-Muslim groups in northern India, including Muslim Jat, Gujjar and Rajput communities in the Punjab and the United Provinces. Soon, appeals began being issued calling for the shuddhi of virtually all the Muslims of India. At a public rally in Lahore, Shraddhanand delivered a fiery speech, appealing to the Hindus to convert to the Hindu fold 65 million Indian Muslims. Bhaskarteertha, the Sanatani Shankaracharya of the Sharada Peetha, went even further and declared that barring 'a few hundred thousand' Indian Muslims whose forefathers had come from 'Afghanistan and Baluchistan', the rest of the Muslims of the country were descendants of Hindu converts and that they should, therefore, be all made Hindu once again. The Muslim reaction to the prospect of mass desertions of large numbers of only partially-Islamised Muslims, perhaps the majority of the Indian Muslim population, to the Hindu fold, was, naturally, one of shock and panic. Leading Muslims now appealed for frantic efforts to be made to rescue the Malkanas, to prevent further conversions to 'Hinduism', and even to begin counter-missionary drives among the Hindus themselves. They were unanimous in asserting that the need of the hour was to launch an India-wide missionary drive, to purge Muslim groups of what were seen as their Hinduistic customs, to spread awareness about the teachings of Islam among them and to bring their practices and life-styles in conformity with the Islamic law [shar'iat] and thereby create clear boundaries between Muslims and others, to prevent Muslims from easily being absorbed into the Hindu fold. As a leading Deobandi 'alim of the Jami'at-ul Ulama-i-Hind asserted, the need of the hour was to 'dye the Hinduistic society [hinduana mu'ashrat] deep with the colour of the culture of the Hijaz'. Tabligh was projected as a community-wide effort, and every Muslim individual, male as well as female, was seen as having a crucial role to play in this project. In the past, the Muslim ruler had been seen as the symbol of the supremacy of Islam and guarantee enough of Muslim power, although, as is well-known, no Muslim ruler in India had ever attempted to rule according to the shari'at in its entirety. Now, in the absence of Muslim political power and in the face of growing Hindu aggressiveness, the Muslim individual came to be seen as the guarantor of Islam. No longer was it enough that the 'ulama, who traditionally, had little contact with the masses, remain confined to their madrasas. Access to scriptural resources, formerly largely the preserve of the ulama, now, it was asserted, must be made available to every Muslim. The duty of tabligh, or spreading Islam, of making Muslims 'better' Muslims and of spreading Islam among non-Muslims, was no longer to be a farz-i-kifaya, a responsibility of the ulama and the Sufis alone. Rather, every Muslim had to become a missionary [muballigh], and Islam was now seen as having commanded all Muslims to participate in its spread. The 'ulama, traditionally close to the centres of Muslim political authority and aloof from ordinary Muslims, were now forced to reach out to the community at large, appealing to them to join in the campaign to counter the Aryas. Tabligh was also to have important consequences of understanding of the self. No longer was it enough for a Muslim to be defined as such simply by virtue of having been born in a Muslim family. On the contrary, it was now necessary for every Muslim to be a self-conscious believer, with his or her faith rooted in at least a basic understanding of the principles of the faith. The most effective counter to the shuddhi challenge, therefore, was seen as lying in spreading Islamic knowledge among neo-Muslim groups and in strengthening their faith. This broad-basing of access to the Islamic scripturalist tradition is clearly evident in the tablighi programmes drawn up by key Muslim ideologues in the wake of the shuddhi offensive. In what emerged as a key controversial text in the shuddhi-tabighi affair, the Da'i-i-Islam ['The Missionary of Islam'], Khwaja Hassan Nizami, a leading Delhi-based Muslim writer and Sufi, called for all classes of Muslims to join hands in opposing the Aryas, in spreading knowledge of Islam among ordinary Muslims vulnerable to the Arya onslaught and also to attempt to convert to Islam 'low' caste Hindus, who were seen as potentially the most receptive to the Islamic message of social equality. In Nizami's tablighi scheme, the Sufis and the 'ulama do have a central but not an exclusive role to play. The Sufis, he says, should use their large number of disciples [muridin] to tour the countryside to preach Islam, and their efforts should be supplemented by those of wandering faqirs. The 'ulama must, he says, come out of their confines in mosques and madrasas and teach ordinary Muslims the basic practices and beliefs of Islam. Besides the Muslim elite, ordinary Muslims also must be fully involved in the project. Thus, Muslim farmers, traders and artisans, who come into daily contact with Hindus, can effectively preach Islam among them. So, too, can Muslim police officers, village record-keepers, postmasters and doctors. Muslim railway staff can engage in tabligh among non-Muslim train passengers. Muslim cooks and bearers employed in English homes can preach to other servants. especially sweepers. Muslim actors should be asked to stage plays in villages on various Islamic themes. Mendicants and blind beggars should sing Islamic songs while asking for alms. This strategy promises to be particularly effective, because, Nizami says, 'In India song and music have a far more powerful effect than lectures and sermons'. Muslim writers should write tracts on methods of tabligh as well as stories about the brave feats of the Muslims. The latter, Nizami says, will have a special appeal for 'martial groups' such as the Rajputs.Nizami set up the Nizamia Sufi Mission to carry out his tablighi project. He does not, however, seem to have met with much success. More fruitful, however, were the efforts of Islamic groups opposed to the popular Sufism that Nizami represented. Such, for instance, was the Tablighi Jama'at, launched by a Deobandi 'alim, Maulana Muhammad Ilyas in 1925, and which today has emerged as the single largest Islamic movement in the world, active in almost every country. The launching of the Tablighi Jama'at was a direct fall-out of the Arya shuddhi campaign. Apprehensive that the Meos of Mewat, a nominally Islamised group living in the vicinity of the Malkana belt, would also fall prey to the Aryas, Ilyas began a campaign aiming at what he saw as their fuller 'Islamisation'. He instructed the Meos to give up their Hindu practices and beliefs and to strictly abide by the shari'at in their daily lives. Meo villagers, who hardly had any knowledge of Islam and whose practices were scarcely different from those of their non-Muslim neighbours, were formed into groups [jama'ats] and despatched to Deobandi madrasas in the western United Provinces and Delhi, there to learn the basics of Islam, such as the creed of confession and the five ritual prayers, from leading 'ulama. On their return to Mewat, they transmitted this knowledge to their kinsmen, and exhorted them to join the jama'ats as well. Great rewards in heaven [sawab] were promised in return for this. According to Tablighi Jama'at sources, in a few years after the launching of Ilyas' campaign, most Meos had given up worshipping at Hindu shrines, wearing Hindu-style clothes and sporting Hindu names.Like Nizami and Ilyas, other Muslim ideologues argued for the 'ulama and Sufi divines to play a leading role in spearheading the tabligh counter-offensive. The Jamiat-ul Ulama-i-Hind, an organisation of leading, largely Deobandi 'ulama, called for the setting up of a chain of madrasas all over the country to impart Islamic education to ordinary Muslims to prevent them from falling into the clutches of the Aryas. 'No number of madrasas is too much, and nor is any amount of money to be spent on them', declared Maulana Muhammad 'Abdul Halim Siddiqui, the treasurer of the Department for the Propagation and Protection of Islam, set up by the Jami'at in 1923 in the wake of the shuddhi campaign among the Malkanas. A similar demand was voiced by the leading 'alim of the Firangi Mahal madrasa of Lucknow, Maulana 'Abdul Bari, who called for Sufi preceptors to instruct their disciples to form teams and tour the countryside preaching Islam to neo-Muslim groups. These teams would include, besides Muslim scholars, individuals with a good knowledge of medicine who would administer to the sick and thus play an important role in spreading Islam among non-Muslims. This focus on spreading Islamic knowledge among the Muslims to combat the threat of the Aryas emerges as particularly salient in the writings of the period of one of the leading Islamic ideologues in recent South Asian history, Maulana Sayyed Abul A’la Maududi, who was later to go on to found the Jama'at-i-Islami. In a series of articles in 1925 of Al-Jami'at, the official organ of the Jami'at-ul Ulama-i-Hind, of which he was then the editor, Maududi argued the case for a more activist and broad-based tabligh campaign that fitted in with his own understanding of Islam as an all-embracing ideology that covered every aspect of life. Maududi stressed that the success of the Arya campaign was but a reflection and a consequence of Muslims having forgotten what he calls 'the fundamental aim' of a Muslim's life and existence--the establishment of Islam in its entirety in accordance with the Will of God, through constant engagement in its tabligh, inviting others to the Truth. 'The entire life of the Prophet Muhammad', he wrote, 'was a manifestation of this da'awat-i-haq [Invitation to the Truth']', and Muslims must follow in his footsteps. A Muslim's entire life, he stressed, is a form of tabligh. For a Muslim to fulfil this divine mission, he or she must have at least a modicum of knowledge of Islam. Further, he or she must be a self-conscious believer. It is not enough, Maududi says, for someone to claim to be a Muslim simply because of birth in a Muslim family. The tablighi project of spreading knowledge of Islam among Muslims, Maududi suggests, must also be accompanied by efforts at social reform on the lines of the shari'at. In particular, social inequalities and caste-like features within the Muslim community, taking advantage of which the Aryas had managed to make considerable headway in their shuddhi campaign, must be combatted. In this way, what Maududi calls for is a consolidated, homogenous, well-defined and closely-knit Muslim community, defined and set apart from the others by strict observance to the shar'iat. Conclusion The Arya shuddhi offensive was thus seen as a grave challenge by Muslim leaders, who responded to it by advocating a grand community-wide effort of Islamic reform, reaching out to hitherto neglected neo-Muslim groups, seeking to draw them into the fold of the emerging pan-Indian Muslim community, united on the basis of allegiance to common beliefs and ritual practices. In the changed socio-political context, ordinary people thus assumed far greater importance in elite-led mobilisational projects than they had hitherto been. In the process, individual Muslims, no matter how humble their station in life, were now seen as crucial symbols and representatives of Islam, assuming the place that the Muslim ruler had traditionally enjoyed. Tabligh and the defence of Islam as a duty of all Muslims, men and women, whatever their social position. q
Posted by: acharya Aug 18 2004, 04:53 PM
South Asia Citizens Web | 14 April 2003 The Politics of Religion in Pakistan: Islamic State or Shari'a Rule by Hassan N. Gardezi The Islamist parties in Pakistan, i. e. parties that use Islamic beliefs as the basis of their political agenda, initiated their demand for converting Pakistan into an Islamic state soon after independence in 1947. Although they were unable to generate popular support for their mission, the ruling elite did start a process of giving the Pakistani state an Islamic identity for reasons of their own political expediency. But for the first three decades of Pakistan's history all official measures in this direction were cosmetic exercises aimed at legitimizing authoritarian rule and keeping the vexatious mullahs happy. Islamization It was not until the Islamization project of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq that the concept of Islamic state began to acquire substance and the Islamic parties began to move to the center stage of Pakistan's politics. The General who had deposed an elected prime minister in 1977 and later had him executed by manipulating the judicial process could turn nowhere but to religious sanction to legitimize his dictatorial rule. Claiming to be divinely inspired he embarked on a frantic mission to "Islamize" Pakistan's state and society, with generous input from the coopted leadership of the Jamate-e-Islami. The centerpiece of this Islamization process was a selective implementation of punitive shari'a laws. The Hudud Ordinance issued by him in 1979 laid down the so called Islamic penalties for a number of offences such as drinking, theft, fornication and adultery prescribing exemplary punishments of public floggings and hangings, amputation of limbs, and death by stoning. Although the more gory of these punishments remained few and far between, there was an orgy of public floggings not only for petty thefts, corruptions and alleged sexual offences but in a large number of cases for political dissent. "Shari'a flourishes under the shadow of the sword," as the old adage goes. But this was not all that Zia left as his "Divine" legacy when he met his sudden death in the mysterious crash of his military plane in 1988. He left behind parallel shariat courts with wide ranging powers to declare any statute in the existing civil and criminal codes as un-Islamic, a draconian blasphemy law to be used as a tool of witch-hunting of religious minorities and secular intellectuals and a number of other legal innovations promoted as "Islamic" banking and taxation including the official collection of zakat, a charity or poor dues mandated by Islam. And most fatefully he implicated Pakistan in the US sponsored anti-Soviet Jehad (holy war) in Afghanistan after the 1979 abortive Communist revolution. Zia's civilian successors, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif who ruled alternately between 1988 to 1999 as prime ministers without being able to complete their respective terms of office could do little but live with the dictator's legacy. Nawaz Sharif during his second term in office even tried to improve upon it by introducing a Shari'a Bill of his own, as 15th amendment to the Constitution, in the parliament where his Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), PML(N), had over two-thirds majority. The purpose of the bill was to give himself the power as a Muslim ruler to adjudicate what was rightful Islamic conduct and what was not. Mercifully for the sinners, yet another military coup in October 1999 resulted in the dissolution of the parliament before his bill could be voted upon. The Birth of Jehadi Islam In the meantime the politics of Islam was undergoing a major qualitative change as a result of Zia's decision in 1980 to involve Pakistan actively in Afghan warlords' anti-Soviet jehad. As this involvement became deeper and deeper, Pakistan army's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI, took over full control of implementing the state policy on this front. Initially the ISI operatives acquired the services of Jamat-e-Islami (jI) to funnel CIA procured arms and money to Afghan warlords masquerading as mujahideen (holy warriors). After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the degeneration of Afghan jehad into a prolonged civil war, the ISI shifted its support to Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam ( JUI,), the more fundamentalist and sectarian of Pakistan's Islamist parties subscribing to the Deobandi-Wahabi doctrine. The Taliban militia that overran the strongholds of earlier mujahideen warlords in the mid-1990s and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under Mulla Omar was mobilized from the religious schools (madrasas) of the JUI.. The JUI also had doctrinal affinity with the fundamentalist Wahabi Islam of Osama bin-Ladin and his Arab followers planted by CIA in Afghanistan to wage anti-communist jehad. The co-optation of Islamist parties as jehadi arms of Pakistan army in Afghanistan sent out a clear signal that waging jehad was a legitimate political activity. All sorts of jehadi formations sprouted out of the existing Islamist parties, as well as independently, to wage their holy wars against "unbelievers." Flush with Arab oil money, public zakat collections diverted to them and private donations, the Islamists consolidated their power by glorifying jehad from their pulpits and public platforms, ran an extensive network of madrasas and military training centers to raise their youthful cadres, and mounted threats to Pakistan's ruling establishment to surrender to their "Islamic" dictates. The arena of Jehad expanded to free Kashmir from Indian control, as well as to free Pakistan from the rule of secular politicians. The 9/11 Windfall Despite all the power flowing from their financial affluence and jehadi guns what the Islamist parties lacked thus far was some semblance of national legitimation through the ballot box. That opportunity opened up when Gen. Parvez Musharraf overthrew the elected government of Nawaz Sharif on October 12, 1999. After taking over as head of the state, Musharraf initially projected himself as a secular reformer, referring to Kamal Ataturk, the president and builder of secular Turkey (1932-38), as his role model. Despite the fact that he was not prepared to disengage the Islamist parties from their state condoned jehad forays into Afghanistan and Indian held Kashmir, he did voice his intent to curb religious bloodshed within Pakistan, check the abuse of blasphemy laws, regulate the curricula and funding of madrasas and enforce gun laws, all welcome news for the citizens constantly harassed by the armed Islamist vigilantes. Although his liberal rhetoric was never translated into action, it did put the Islamists on guard to defend the sources of their power and privilege. They began to close their ranks in preparation to meet any official threat to their assets and operational freedom. While Musharraf was trying to accommodate the Islamists into his "liberal" scheme of things the events of September 11, 2001 brought him under fierce US pressure to cut Pakistan's ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and stop the appeasement of jehadi formations inside Pakistan. Citing dire consequences of defying the Americans, he forthwith took a volte-face from Pakistan's long-standing Afghanistan policy and acquiesced to the use of Pakistani territory by American forces in their infernal onslaught to crush the Taliban regime and hunt down Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda jehadis now redefined as terrorists. On October 7. 2001 the United States launched its devastating carpet bombing of Afghanistan provoking a wave of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan which swept the entire country. This anger at US action was felt and displayed much more acutely in the provinces of NWFP and Balochistan where people are ethnically closer to the neighbouring Afghans and the JUI has historically exercised stronger religious and political influence. Taking full political advantage of this situation the Islamist parties went on the offensive, staging anti-American demonstrations and denouncing the Musharraf government for compromising Pakistan's sovereignty by allowing US Air Force and =46BI agents to set up operations inside the country. At the same time their armed jehadi offshoots and holy warriors of various other nationalities fleeing into Pakistan to escape American fire in Afghanistan unleashed a new wave of bloody terrorist attacks on resident foreigners, Christian churches, Christian run schools and hospitals as well as minority Shia Muslims and their places of worship. The Musharraf government, with its gaze fixed on the elections scheduled for October 2002, remained constrained and vacillating in dealing with this violent turn of events. While the Islamist parties and their jehadi offshoots were allowed to exploit the post-9/11 political situation freely, the government was preoccupied with its maneuvers to undermine the two mainstream political parties, the PPP and the PML(N), that could pose a real threat to Musharraf's hold on state power in the approaching elections. By means of a series of decreed constitutional amendments, disqualification orders, ISI pressure on politicians, and raiding of the PML(N) to create a new "king's party," the stage was set to hold elections for restoration of a parliamentary democracy in the country to be presided over by Gen. Musharraf as the all-powerful head of state. All these events converged to produce a windfall for the Islamist parties boosting their electoral fortunes. Unified into a six party conglomerate called Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) or United Action =46orum, they entered the elections capitalizing on the upsurge of anti-American sentiment, while benefitting also from the officially erected roadblocks in the way of the mainstream political parties. When these stage managed elections concluded the MMA alliance walked away with 58 seats in a 342 seat federal parliament forming the third largest block in a house where no party was able to win a clear majority. The alliance also scored a major victory by winning a majority of seats in the provincial assembly of NWFP to form its own government. In the Balochistan assembly MMA won enough seats to become part of the ruling coalition. This was indeed a major breakthrough for the Islamist parties giving them a measure of control they never had before over the instrumentalities of parliamentary governance whatever its functional limitations under Musharraf's controlled democracy. The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq on March 21, 2003 coming as it did soon after Afghanistan's ordeal will no doubt further enhance the political fortunes of MMA. This Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, condemned universally by people of all faiths including millions of Christians in Europe and North America, is portrayed by Pakistan's Islamists as a Christian war on Islam. Their simplistic logic presented through inflammatory sermons and speeches appeals to the mass of Muslim audiences more than the anti-imperialist discourses of secular politicians and intellectuals. The message of the Islamists is equally simple. The establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan is the only way to help the cause of beleaguered Muslims everywhere. The Islamic State or Shari'a Rule Clearly, the project of converting Pakistan into an Islamic state initiated by Islamist parties that opposed the very creation of the new state has come a long way. But the basic question still remains to be addressed. Having gone through half a century of pursuing the celebrated objective at the cost of fracturing the civil society with violent religious, sectarian and ethnic conflicts, what kind of an Islamic state do they have in the works for Pakistan? Realistically speaking, there is no ideal-type model of an Islamic state to go by that can be derived from the political history of the Muslim world. What is sometimes referred to as the original pristine Islamic State, ending with the assassination in 661 AD of Ali, the fourth rightly guided Caliph, is a misnomer because the seventh century Hijaz was a tribal society in transition which had not yet evolved into a nation state. There is no consensus among the Islamists even on the basic question of whether the Islamic state is going to be a hereditary monarchy, a dictatorship or a democratic republic. The founder of Pakistan's Jamat-e-Islami and the chief theoretician of the Islamic state, late Maulana Maududi, maintains that the Islamic state will be a Caliphate (Khilafat), ruled by a caliph as the "vicegerent of God," whose duty it will be to enforce the "Laws of God." While the Maulana explicitly repudiates "Western democracy," he remains noncommital on the method by which the caliph of the Islamic state will be appointed to his exalted office. In practice, therefore, the introduction of shari'a laws torn out of their socio-historical context has become the sole defining feature of the Islamic state in post-colonial societies from Pakistan to Nigeria. With all the political gains they have made in Pakistan, the Islamists of the MMA have little to reveal in their plans of action other than widening of the punitive net of shari'a laws. Since their electoral victory of October 2002 elections, for example, the MMA government in NWFP has been busy proscribing singing, dancing, music, cinema, cable television, coeducation, tailoring of women's garments by men outfitters, in short whatever its clerics consider to be contrary to Islamic shari'a. It also lost no time to appoint an advisory body on the implementation of shari'a, the Nifaz-e-Sharia Council, which has already submitted its report to the provincial Chief Minister for a thoroughgoing substitution of all post-colonial laws with supposedly immutable Islamic laws. Even if it is granted that an Islamic State can be created simply by introducing shari'a laws, a fundamental sociological problem remains. No legal system functions in a vacuum. The hudud laws of the seventh century Hijaz, for example, were the product of a tribal society. They were unwritten norms of conduct learned through primary socialization in self- contained family and kinship groups. There were no formal structures of law enforcement such as trained police forces and judges, courts, prisons and formalized rules of judicial procedure. People lived and worked in small communities where everybody knew everybody else, and they conformed to the norms of their society, not because of threat of punishment by formal state agencies, but as a result of strong group pressure and consciousness of kind, what Ibne Khuldun called "asabyia." Corporal punishment existed but rarely needed to be applied. Restitution was more common in cases of wrong doings leading to personal loss. A simplistic and overzealous introduction of the laws of a totally different social formation into the socio-political fabric of a post-colonial, urbanizing, pluralistic society with increasing break down of primary group ties can neither serve to maintain peace nor meet the ends of justice. On the contrary it can breed violence and contempt for the existing legal system and rule of law. The reason for this is quite simple. The idea that laws are divinely ordained and fixed for all time can easily be carried over to any set of archaic, traditional customs whether they fall within the orbit of shari'a or not. In such cases blind faith, superstition and even ulterior motives can outweigh the more rational considerations for conformity to the formally instituted legal system of a civil society, and give rise to vigilante justice meted out at the spur of the moment or administered by self-styled local assemblies such as "jirgas" to replace the rule of law and due process. It is no wonder than that the era of hudud laws and jehadi Islam has also brought with it in Pakistan an epidemic of honour killings, "karo kari" killings and mob executions of whoever happens to be accused of blasphemy. It is the price the society is paying for the fallacy of regarding the shari'a punishments as the essence of Islamic teachings instead of the universal human values which many Muslims believe to be the foundation of their faith. The fundamentalism of the Islamists consists of e xclusive preoccupation with establishing the identity of the Islamic state and its citizens by means of ritual conformity to certain fixed codes of conduct. It does not matter to them whether such conformity serves the interests of social justice, protection of human dignity, compassion, equality and peace. The Islamists and their mullah fraternity have for too long thrived on legislating ritual conformity to gender specific codes of conduct and appearance by the exercise of their traditional authority to issue fatwas (judicial decrees). The building of a just political order on Islam's transcendent values is neither compatible with their professional training nor with their vested interests. Realizing the Islamic State Against this backdrop it is not difficult to figure out the nature of the state the Islamists intend to establish in Pakistan. From all indications the model of Islamic state towards which Pakistan is being led at the moment is that of the now defunct Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. This model in fact was the outgrowth of Wahabi-Deobandi madrasas and seminaries of Pakistan spread from Akora Khattak to Karachi, controlled by JUI factions. Its precipitation in Afghanistan was greatly assisted by Pakistan's ISI, contributions of the American CIA to the anti-communist jehad and the influx of Arab jehadis as noted earlier. It was imposed on the people of Afghanistan by the barrel of the gun wielded by Taliban. The repression carried out by them and their Amir, supreme leader Mullah Omar, is now too well known. The destruction of Buddha's statutes along with museums and works of art depicting living beings, the hacking of TV sets and VCRs, the burning of films and cinema houses, the banning of singing and dancing, stripping women of their jobs and confining them in homes and burkas (veils), punishments of death by stoning, massacres of Hazara shias and heterodox Tajiks and Uzbeks were by no means random acts of savagery. They were part of a plan to create an Islamic state by enforcing a comprehensive code of conduct which they thought was divinely ordained. The necessity of violence and blood letting arose because the inward looking normative Islam of their conception was not even compatible with Afghanistan's largely tribal society and culture. Needless to say that the repatriation of this style of Islamic statehood to Pakistan is not going to be any less of a coercive and bloody project for several reasons. To begin with, Pakistan's society is too far removed in time and space from conditions under which shari'a laws ever operated. The 21st century Pakistan, except for the relative isolation of some tribal communities in NWFP and Balochistan, is very much exposed to the cultural influences of a global urban industrial civilization. These influences are now very much integrated in the social and cultural life of the people of Pakistan and cannot be eradicated without the use of a great degree of physical force and coercion. Today's Pakistan has a long history of living experience with British jurisprudence and its local adaptations going back to at least a century and a half. Compared to this, the enforcement of shari'a was never a tradition in any part of the country until Gen. Zia-ul-Haq issued his controversial hudud ordinance which still remains to be fully implemented because of its anachronisms. It is also noteworthy that the orthodoxy of the Islamist political establishment in Pakistan, particularly the JUI brand of Wahabi-Deobandi Islam, does not have its roots in the soil. This brand of Islam is doctrinaire, virulently intolerant of diversity, misogynist and obsessed with jehad as opposed to the faith and spirituality of ordinary people of Pakistan which is syncretic, tolerant, devotional and blended in the mystical spirituality of the Indus Valley and its languages. Song, music and dance are very much part of this folk spiritual tradition. This populist tradition will have to be suppressed in order to establish the supremacy of the orthodox, normative Islam in Pakistan. Given the great dissonance between the political agenda of the Islamists and Pakistan's existing socio-cultural realities, one cannot escape the conclusion that the people of Pakistan will have to be subjected to an unbelievable scale of coercion, inward looking isolation and tribalization before the Pakistani state is given its Islamic identity by means of enforcing a nationwide uniform gender specific code of conduct which the Islamists consider to be divinely ordained. For such a project to be realized, the cultural mosaic of Pakistan will have to be destroyed, ethnic plurality eliminated, diversity of religious beliefs curbed and severe restrictions placed on forms of art and entertainment. What the MMA government has initiated in the NWFP is only a hint of things to come. The JI, a major component of the Islamist alliance is going to provide a more comprehensive, albeit a miniature, view of Pakistan's Islamic state through its shari'a-based city of "Qartaba" which it is planning to build some 80 km from Islamabad. How far the Islamists can go to achieve their ultimate objective depends on how well they do in retaining and expanding their political power in the unfolding dynamics of Pakistan's internal and geo-political situation. There are a number of uncertainties ominously looming overhead at the moment What is the capacity of Islamist parties to stick together in the MMA alliance? How well can Gen. Musharraf and his government manage its balancing act of apprehending the al-Qaeda fugitives for the United States while at the same time appeasing the militant Islamists and jehadi formations at home? With its declared possession of weapons of mass destruction, warned against involvement in terrorist operations in Indian held Kashmir and accused by the Bush administration of trading nuclear and missile technology with North Korea, how long is the sole Superpower on earth going to wait before making another Iraq of Pakistan? To what extent is Gen. Musharraf and his military establishment willing to make peace with India and seek a political solution of the Kashmir conflict? The answer to all these questions is critical in determining the limits of power enjoyed by the Islamists and indeed the very fate of the Pakistani states as a sovereign entity.
Posted by: acharya Aug 18 2004, 04:56 PM
Muslim reactions to the shuddhi campaign in early twentieth century North India By Yoginder Sikand The 1920s may be regarded as a crucial watershed in the history of inter-communal conflict in northern India. Communal rioting saw a sudden upsurge in this period , playing a key role in the political dynamics that later culminated in the Partition of India. One of the most salient developments in the 1920s was the launching of the shuddhi movement by the Arya Samaj to bring into the Hindu fold various groups considered outside the pale of what had now come to be defined as 'Hinduism', including untouchables and, later, Muslim, Christian and even Sikh communities. The Arya shuddhi campaign provoked Muslim leaders and groups to respond, and this took the form of various tablighi or Islamic missionary initiatives intended to counter the Arya Samaj's conversion drive and, going further, to attempt to spread Islam among non-Muslims as well. Unlike Christianity or Islam, what is today known as 'Hinduism' has historically not been an organized missionary religion. However, as the spread of Brahminical Hinduism from its centre in north Indian Aryavarta to the south and the east of India and among tribal and other groups living on the margins of caste Hindu societies clearly illustrates, the process of Hinduization has had a long history and is, in fact, a continuing phenomenon. Since 'Hinduism' lacks any defining set of tenets or beliefs, the Hinduization process, the Hindu parallel to conversion in Christianity and Islam, has taken the form of absorption of non-Hindu groups into the caste system. The extent to which this could be regarded as religious conversion, understood in the usual Christian or Islamic sense, is, however, debatable. While the 'Hinduized' groups were accommodated within the caste order, the process did not necessarily result in a total or even a very significant change in religious beliefs. Access to Vedic scriptural resources remained a closely-guarded Brahminical monopoly, and the Hinduized groups carried on with many of their earlier practices and beliefs, although, over time, they, too, were gradually transformed. Thus, for instance, the distinctly non-Aryan deity Shiva was appropriated as a member of the Hindu Trinity and various tribal goddesses were explained away as different forms of the devi, Durga. The emergence of shuddhi as an organized missionary project, therefore, is a distinctly modern development, and one that must be seen as a product of and a response to the colonial Indian context. The crystallization of the notion of 'Hinduism' as a well-defined religion with its own set of scriptures in the manner of Christianity and Islam, conversion to which was indeed possible, was a product of several forces, in which Orientalists, British administrators and Christian missionaries, besides Hindu elites, had their own critical roles to play. Seeking to model itself on the lines of Christianity and Islam, the Arya Samaj, founded in 1875 by the Gujarati Brahmin Dayanand Saraswati, accorded the Vedas the position of the Hindu Bible or Qur'an. Conversion to this newly defined Vedic Hinduism was made possible through undergoing the shuddhi or purificatory rite, for which ancient scriptural sanction was sought to be manufactured. The first shuddhi ceremonies performed by the Aryas were of caste Hindu individuals who were believed to have lost their caste status or ritual purity by crossing the seas or by partaking of food cooked by Christians or Muslims. By the early twentieth century, however, shuddhi began being directed at entire social groups outside or on the margins of the caste order, including untouchables and recent as well as nominal converts to Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. The transformation of shuddhi from conversion of individual caste Hindus who were believed to have been rendered ritually impure to the conversion of entire social groups outside the Hindu fold is a process that was inextricably linked to the changing nature of colonial rule and the Indian political context by the turn of the twentieth century. The institution of the census in 1871, which further lent legitimacy to the notion of a homogenous pan-Indian Hindu community identity transcending caste differences, proved to be a major catalyst in this regard. Alarmed by the revelation of declining Hindu proportions in various provinces in successive censuses, one cause of which was conversion of 'low' caste groups to Christianity and Islam, 'upper' caste elites were increasingly goaded into a race for numbers, to prevent further depletion in Hindu ranks. The gradual introduction of reforms in the bureaucratic and political machinery of the colonial state from the late nineteenth century onwards, which allowed limited Indian participation in the lower and middle ranks of the administration, made the race for numbers a particularly crucial one. Access to the benefits of colonial largesse, including jobs and representation in local bodies, was to be determined on the basis of the numerical proportion of each community, defined on the basis of a reified notion of religious identity. Middle class Hindus, seeing themselves as the 'natural leaders' of their 'community' so defined and being considered as such by the colonial state, were now increasingly concerned to bolster the number of their co-religionists, or at least to prevent further depletion in their ranks, as access to power, position and privilege came increasingly to depend on numerical strength. The logic of democracy was, in this way, employed to promote the interests of a dominant minority. Shuddhi Among the Muslims The first recorded shuddhi of a born Muslim was reported in 1877, when Dayanand Saraswati performed the shuddhi of a Muslim man from Dehra Dun, giving him the name of Alakhdhari. Individual conversions of this sort were few and far between, for such converts not only severed all social ties with their relatives but were also not fully accepted as equals not just by the Sanatani Hindus, who vociferously opposed the shuddhi project, but even by members of the Arya Samaj, who Ghai says, 'behaved like most of the traditionalists and conservatives, fearing the wrath of their caste biraderi'. Clearly then, the Aryas realized, shuddhi among the Muslims would have to take the form of conversion of entire Muslim social groups if it was to really succeed. As a prelude to the actual launching of this ambitious missionary drive, towards the end of the nineteenth century Maharaja Ranbir Singh, the Hindu ruler of the largely Muslim state of Kashmir, is said to have commissioned the preparation of a 21-volume encyclopaedia by the name of Ranbir Karit Prayaschit Mahanibandh ['Ranbir's Great Essay on Repentance'], which argued the case and suggested strategies for the mass conversion of all the 'neo-Muslim communities' [nau Muslim aqwam] of India to 'Hinduism'. This book, Muslim leaders were to later allege, had been secretly circulated among leading Hindus so that the Muslims remained unaware of the plot. The first attempts by the Aryas at mass conversions of Muslim groups date to 1908, when Arya missionaries began touring the area around Deeg in the Bharatpur State in eastern Rajputana, calling upon Muslims there to renounce Islam, which, they alleged, had been forcibly imposed on their ancestors. Some years later, Arya missionaries found active among the neo-Muslim Malkanas, a Rajput group who claimed to be Muslim but followed several Hindu customs and beliefs, in Etawah, Kanpur, Shahajahnpur, Hardoi, Meerut and Mainpuri in the western United Provinces, exhorting them to return to what they called their 'ancestral religion'. In 1910, shuddhi sabhas were set up in several places in these districts, and although it was claimed that they had converted some 1000 Malkana Muslims to the Hindu fold, they were wound up the following year. As in the case of Deeg, the Aryas are said to have met with little success, being successfully countered by the intervention of local Muslim bodies working in association with the Anjuman Hidayat-ul Islam, a Delhi-based Muslim missionary organization. A decade later, however, the Aryas were to launch the shuddhi campaign in the Malkana belt on a war-footing. In August 1922, in the wake of grossly exaggerated reports of forced conversions of Hindus in Malabar in the course of the Mappilla rebellion, the Kshatriya Upakarini Sabha ['Kshatriya Upliftment Society'], an organization of Hindu Rajputs patronized by Rajput princes and landlords, passed a resolution at a meeting in Allahabad calling for the conversion of the Muslim Rajputs to the Hindu fold. In December that year, the Sabha met once again, and decided to launch a campaign to convert the Malkanas to 'Hinduism'. This provided the stimulus to the Aryas to start shuddhi work among the Malkanas. In August 1923, Shraddhanand, the leading Arya shuddhi advocate, presided over a meeting to discuss strategies for the shuddhi of the Malkanas. The fact that the meeting was attended by leading Sanatani, Jain and Sikh spokesmen, all of whom vociferously supported the shuddhi campaign, clearly suggests, as Muslim leaders were to allege, that the race for numbers and political interests, rather than the propagation of the Arya brand of 'Hinduism', were the motivating factors behind the planned missionary drive. The meeting approved the setting up of the Bharatiya Hindu Shuddhi Sabha, an all-India shuddhi council, whose objective was said to be the conversion of all non-Hindu groups all over India to the Hindu fold. The shuddhi campaign among the Malkanas, which was launched in early 1923, reached its peak by the end of 1927, by which time some 1,63,000 Malkana Muslims are said to have been brought into the Hindu fold. Significantly, although the Aryas played the leading role in the drive, the shuddhi-ed Malkanas, by and large, did not convert to the Arya faith as such. Other than renouncing some of their Islamic practices, such as burial of the dead or male circumcision, there seems to have been little change in their own beliefs and practices. If they chose not to accept the Arya brand of Vedic 'Hinduism', orthodox Hindus seemed reluctant to accept them, considering them as ritually impure and inferior. Having 'rescued' them from their Islamic past, the Aryas and the Sanatanis were quite content to leave the Malkanas to their own devices. De-Islamization, and not an impelling urge to spread Arya beliefs, seems to have been the fundamental impulse behind the Arya shuddhi drive among the Malkanas. Shuddhi emerged as a powerful mobilizational symbol and tool to consolidate Hindu ranks, helping galvanize the process of the construction of a pan-Indian Hindu community rigidly set apart from the rest. It is hardly surprising that Shradhhanand, the leading force behind the Malkana shuddhi, was also the most ardent advocate of sanghathan, the consolidation and militarization of all Hindudom. As testimony to the success of the shuddhi campaign in mobilizing and consolidating the Hindus, both Aryas as well as the Sanatanis who had initially been vehemently opposed to shuddhi, as one, transcending deep-seated caste, sectarian, racial, linguistic and regional divisions, the Tribune of Lahore, in its editorial of 2 May, 1927, remarked: 'The shuddhi… propaganda is no longer the exclusive concern of the Arya Samaj; an overwhelming majority of the Hindus are identified [with it]'.
Posted by: acharya Aug 18 2004, 05:04 PM
Global Drive of Islamic Conversions by V.P. Bhatia MUSLIM papers never tire of claiming that Islam is the fastest spreading religion in the world and that in the next 25 years it will overtake Christianity in terms of the largest number of followers. In an article, a local Urdu magazine has claimed that post-September 11 attacks on WTC towers in USA, Muslims have recovered from the demoralisation inflicted by anti-Islam propaganda and ill-treatment in USA and other Christian countries and that they are now more devout, determined and organised in the spread and service of Islam. They are getting geared up to face the covert crusade launched by Christian leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair and even Russian President, Vladimir Putin against them despite their outward praise for Islam as "religion of peace" to mollify Muslim sentiments. In this context, a couple of papers have revealed some interesting facts and figures about the work of Islamic conversion going on 'quietly' in all parts of the world particularly the USA where the present Muslim population of 50 lakhs is increasing fast. Some 50,000 criminals (mostly blacks) in American jails have accepted conversion to Islam, it is claimed. More than one thousand mosques of USA are now more crowded with Muslim devotees. Interest in study of Islam and sales of the Quran have shot up. Islamic missionaries have made considerable inroads into the countries like Trinidad, West Tobago, Surinam and West Guinea to increase Muslim numbers 'quietly'. Besides, individual Americans are being influenced. Recently 450 Americans accepted Islam in Oklahama city of USA. According to an American Muslim NRI who recently visited India and addressed Jamaat-e-Islami meetings here, 80 per cent Muslim students are going in for modern education rather than madrassas in USA. Now they are the future leaders of Muslims in various countries. One hundred Red Indians of the American continent are embracing Islam every month. There were 22,000 cases of killings of Muslims and violence against Muslim women recorded within three hours of the attacks on WTC towers. But now the situation is easing although "three lobbies of America like Zionist Jews, Christian Evangelists and Brahman fundamentalists" are making concerted efforts to undermine American Muslims' morale by publishing books and propagating otherwise against Islam. But now some American organisations themselves are getting active to combat this propaganda because of Islamic economic clout worldwide due to oil and surplus oil funds deposited in US banks. Meanwhile, a local weekly has claimed that 200 dalits of Tamil Nadu have sought state Government's permission for conversion. Although they have not indicted to which religion they want to convert, the hint is clear. The Islamic-Christian lobby is collaborating to prop up leaders like Udit Raj by spending crores. Awakened Indian Muslims are reported to have made unprecedented educational and economic progress since Babri demolition. The weekly has also given an interesting example of a Christian girl converting to Islam in Scotland after love-marriage with a Pakistani shopkeeper in her locality. Subsequently, she was able to convert the whole family of her parents and some neighbours also to Islam by her pious behaviour. Which brings us to the interesting case of Lady Nadira Naipaul who has been taunted by Pakistani writers for failing to soften Naipaul's 'poison-pen' against Islam, and the UK-based Indian journalist Farrukh Dhondy's 'gossip' about Naipaul's conversion before marriage to Nadira. Dhondy's revelation of this conversion business reminds me of what Mahatma Gandhi wrote about a secret tablighi (proselytising) booklet circulated by Khwaja Hasan Nizami (1878-1957) a renowned Islamist writer and Sufi leader of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah of Delhi in 1920, in which all Muslims were advised to concentrate on collective conversion of 'untouchables' for which the fabulously rich Ismaeli Khoja leader, Agha Khan was offering generous monetary help to enable Muslims achieve parity of population with Hindus. In this strange Islamic propaganda directory, the Khwaja, who was also editor of a paper known as Manadi advocated all measures, fair or foul, for this conversion mission enjoined on every true Muslim by the Prophet, so that even Mahatma Gandhi was compelled to take note of this conspiracy. Thus while the Arya Samaj started its Shuddhi (reconversion)campaign only after the forcible conversion of some 3000 Hindus by the ferocious Moplahs of Malabar accompanied by massacres and most brutal atrocities on women many of whom jumped into wells to save their honour in the August 1922 Moplah rebellion, prominent Muslim leaders had started their Tablighi drive even earlier by 1920 to increase Muslim numbers, to get over their minority complex vis--vis massive Hindu majority. Mahatma Gandhi's Exposure of Khwaja Hasan Nizami's Book of Islamic Conversions Referring to Nizami's book, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Young India dated May 29, 1924, "I have read his pamphlet from cover to cover. It gives detailed instructions to preachers how to carry on (conversion) propaganda. It starts with a lofty proposition that Islam is merely preaching the Unity of God. This grand truth is to be preached according to the writer, by every Mussalman irrespective of character. A secret department of spies is advocated, whose one business is to pry into the privacy of non-Muslim households. Prostitutes, professional singers, mendicants, Government servants, lawyers, doctors, artisans are pressed into the service. If this kind of propaganda becomes popular, no Hindu household would be safe from the secret attention of distinguished misinterpreters (I cannot call them missionaries) of the great message of the Prophet of Islam. I am told by respectable Hindus that this pamphlet is widely read in the Nizam's dominions (Hyderabad State), and that the methods advocated in it are extensively practised there. As a Hindu I am sorry that methods of such doubtful morality should have been seriously advocated by a gentleman who is a well known Urdu author (Khwaja Hasan Nizami) and has a large circle of readers. My Mussalman friends tell me that no responsible Mussalman approves of the methods advocated. The point, however, is not what the respectable Mussalmans think. The point is whether a considerable number of Mussalman masses accept and follow them" It is significant that a number of anti-Hindu pamphlets were circulated in those days but when the Arya Samaj launched a campaign of retaliatory writings and Swami Shradhanand (who had gone to jail in the Khilafat-cum-Non-cooperation Movement) started Bharat Shuddhi Sabha to step up his counter-Shuddhi campaign after release from jail, he was murdered in 1926 and his murderer Abdul Rashid was honoured with a special prayer and fatwa for his salvation at the Darul Uloom, the international Madrassas' University run by the pro-Congress Jamiat-ul-Ulema in western UP. Similarly, when in reply to two scurrilous Islamic pamphlets entitled The Maharishi (Dayanand) of 20th century and Krishen teri Gita jalani padegi (Krishna, your Gita will have to be burnt), a book named Rangila Rasul wa published by Mahashe Rajpal of Lahore, he too was murdered in early 1929 after he was acquitted by a court after two years' trial. The overzealous secularist Mahatma Gandhi played a great part in inciting Muslims to bring Rajpal to book through his six articles in Young India. Similarly, the whole Hindu population of Kohat town in NWFP was murdered or forced to migrate to Rawalpindi in 1924 for a similar reason of a retaliatory publication. This was a foreshadow of the Partition riots and wholesale expulsion of Hindus. Recent Hindi book entitled Dharma Ki Balivedi Par (Rs. 100, Pp. 175) published by his son Vishwanath, owner of Rajpal and Sons, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, brings out the detailed story of Rajpal's martyrdom who was stabbed to death in his shop in Anarkali Lahore by an uneducated fanatical carpenter named Ilamdin, at the instigation of local mosque sermons, after two earlier unsuccessful attempts to kill him. The book also brings out the Hindu reactions, including those of Veer Savarkar and Bhai Parmanand. The name of the real author of the book, Chamupati M.A., was kept secret by Rajpal till the end. The pint is as per the basic tenets of Islam, every Muslim is supposed to be a missionary or propagandist of his religion to influence in Islam's favour with whomsoever he comes in contact. It is an interesting coincidence that two Hindu film producers with Muslim wives have produced films highlighting the plight of Muslims in India. They are Shyam Benegal and M.S. Sathyu, the producers of Sardari Begum and Garam Hawa. But no one has dared to produce a film on the worse plight of Bangladeshi Hindus as depicted by Taslima Nasrin in her book Lajja. Sardari Begum blatantly violates the film censorship code by directly identifying the BJP with Kamal symbol as the instigators of communal attack in which Sardari Begum, a Kotha singer, dies. But who cares for the code in secularist camp.
Posted by: Peregrine Aug 19 2004, 10:06 AM
http://www.brokennewz.com/worldnews/virginshortage.asp user posted image Mecca - Muslim leaders from around the world hastily assembled today in the most holy city of Islam for an emergency meeting to discuss alarming reports that not all is well in Paradise. "It appears that some of our young martyrs are displeased with the virgins they have received in Paradise," said Sheik Ali bin Farabi, Chairman of the influential Committee to Get Morons to Blow Themselves Up and Kill Infidels. "You see, Islam is a religion of love, and is based upon getting young people to strap sticks of dynamite to their bodies and go into malls and discos so that they may kill many, many innocent infidels. This is the will of Allah. Of course, most young Muslims these days are corrupted by the vile Western world with its indoor plumbing and Red Fusion Dr. Pepper, and so we must promise 72 virgins to any young person who fulfils the loving message of Islam by blowing up infidels." This reporter was able to interview several martyrs in Paradise where morale levels as of late have become dangerously low. "I was robbed," said "Mohammed," a 15-year old martyr from Hebron. "Man, if I had known that all my 72 virgins were going to be Arab girls, I'd have never put on that vest filled with 12 pounds of plastique and blown myself up in that crowded daycare center. Geesh, those Arab girls have bigger mustaches than Sam Elliott's. Say what you will about the accursed Zionist chicks, but at least they're hot." Some martyrs are even questioning the bona fides of their virgins. "Yeah, I was like, so shocked, when I saw that Halima was one of my virgins," said "Ali," a 16-year old martyr from the Golan Heights. "She may technically be a 'virgin," but she's a slut, that's for sure. Heck, I saw her give a hand job to Binky bin Laden in 8th grade during Weapons Class. And everybody says she went all-the-way with Joey al Haqa ibn Mashari last year during Ramadan." Several martyrs have gone so far as to hire lawyers and are looking into the possibility of posthumously converting to Christianity. The majority, however, describe themselves as "majorly bummed," and have decided to stick with camels. Cheers
Posted by: rajesh_g Aug 19 2004, 04:35 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/819614.cms
QUOTE
WASHINGTON: A new book on Islam titled The Sword of the Prophet has accused Muslims of perpetrating unparalleled massacres in India quite similar to genocide of Jews by the Nazi regime during the "Holocaust" in the 1930s and 1940s. Written by Serge Trifkovic, an American magazine editor, the book says that Islam is by no means a religion of peace, but a faith with a hidden agenda to discredit Christianity and the West.
Who is Serge Trifkovic ?
Posted by: Sattva Aug 19 2004, 07:14 PM
http://www.al-islam.org/taqiyah/ A book written by a Muslim explaining the Muslim tactic of Lying to the Unbelievers in order to further the Islamic goal of world conquest. excerpt: " … and we know that taqiyah affects only externally (i.e.' its effect is only on the tongue) and not internally (on the heart, spirit, soul). When someone forces an­other one to do something, (and that thing happens to be connected with heart) then the oppressor has no way of knowing that his wish has been complied with, except through some utterings by the tongue from which he will conclude that he has succeeded in changing the heart of the oppressed. Therefore, the best course of action at the time of taqiyah is to show the friendship with the un­believers by words, to mix with them and live with them with good manners, but the heart must remain firmly with the previous feelings towards them, of hidden enmity and the belief of aloofness from them. "And such a man (who finds himself in such a situ­ation) should‑as far as possible‑use dissimulation and double‑entendre (i.e. words and sentences that admit two interpretations‑one correct, one wrong; the speaker intends correct meaning and the unbelievers take it to mean the other meaning)." that, my friends, is an absolutely perfect example of how muslims act - at least the ones with some education. The mass of Muslims are simply barbarians. I have a cousin in Kolkata who went to a 50-50 Hindu Muslim school, and he came out saying 75% are terrible. He also had a Muslim friend - or so he thought - who after the Gujariot riots choose to email my cousin a very long letter venting against Hindus in general!!
Posted by: raj Aug 22 2004, 04:43 PM
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html I am not sure if this website has been posted here before. This books says it presents the story of islam from its primary sources. I found it very interesting. Lots of things explained about islam.
Posted by: Karkala Joishy Aug 22 2004, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Sattva @ Aug 19 2004, 09:14 PM)
http://www.al-islam.org/taqiyah/ A book written by a Muslim explaining the Muslim tactic of Lying to the Unbelievers in order to further the Islamic goal of world conquest. excerpt: " … and we know that taqiyah affects only externally (i.e.' its effect is only on the tongue) and not internally (on the heart, spirit, soul). When someone forces an­other one to do something, (and that thing happens to be connected with heart) then the oppressor has no way of knowing that his wish has been complied with, except through some utterings by the tongue from which he will conclude that he has succeeded in changing the heart of the oppressed. Therefore, the best course of action at the time of taqiyah is to show the friendship with the un­believers by words, to mix with them and live with them with good manners, but the heart must remain firmly with the previous feelings towards them, of hidden enmity and the belief of aloofness from them. "And such a man (who finds himself in such a situ­ation) should‑as far as possible‑use dissimulation and double‑entendre (i.e. words and sentences that admit two interpretations‑one correct, one wrong; the speaker intends correct meaning and the unbelievers take it to mean the other meaning)." that, my friends, is an absolutely perfect example of how muslims act - at least the ones with some education. The mass of Muslims are simply barbarians. I have a cousin in Kolkata who went to a 50-50 Hindu Muslim school, and he came out saying 75% are terrible. He also had a Muslim friend - or so he thought - who after the Gujariot riots choose to email my cousin a very long letter venting against Hindus in general!!
Basically the idea is you can do anything to a kafir. Rape, murder, looting, everything is allowed when inflicting on a kafir to defend Islam.
Posted by: Rajita Rajvasishth Aug 22 2004, 11:17 PM
Received by e-mail. I do not know its authencity but seems believable. All those BR-type nutcases who want to cosy up with Shite Iran should know that Mullahs and Mullahs and there is nothing wrong with a regime change in Iran. There are some brave Iranians who are still willing die and defy the tyranny of Islam that their ancestors received long ago. They need support and not the tyrants of Iran. Iran Focus On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center. The sentence was issued by the head of Neka's Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs' Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi. In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims. The judge personally pursued Ateqeh's death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her "sharp tongue". http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3661 Translation From Persian: By Khorshid ActivistChat Member On Sunday August 15, 2004, a 16 year old girl by the name of Atefe Rajabi, daughter of Ghassem Rajabi, was executed in the town of Neka, located in the province of Mazandaran, for "engaging in acts incompatible with chastity". The execution was carried out by the order of Neka's "judicial administrator" and was approved by both the Supreme Court of the Islamic Republic and the chief of the nation's "judiciary branch." Although according to her birth certificate she was only 16 years old, the local court falsely claimed that she was 22. Three months ago, during her appearance before the local court, fiercely angry the young girl hurled insults at the local judge, Haji Reza, who is also the chief judicial administrator of the city, and it is said as another expression of protest took off some of her clothes in the courtroom. This act by the young girl made the administrator so furious that he evaluated her file personally and in less than three months received a go-ahead from the Islamic Republic's Supreme Court for her execution. The animosity and anger of Haji Reza was so strong that he personally put the rope around the girl's delicate neck and personally gave the signal to the crane operator, by raising his hand, to begin pulling the rope. It may be noted that although according to the Islamic Republic's own penal laws the presence of an attorney for the defense [is supposed to be] mandatory, regardless of the defendant's ability to afford one, nevertheless the girl remained without an attorney. Her unfortunate father, while tears poured from his eyes, went about the city beseeching the townspeople for money to hire an attorney who in the least would provide his daughter with a line of defense. The young girl was buried the same day after her execution but during that same night her corpse was disinterred by unknown individuals and robbed. The theft remains unexplained and the Rajabi family has filed a complaint. The 16 year old girl's male companion, who had been arrested as well, received 100 lashes and, after the Islamic punishment was carried out, released.
Posted by: Kaushal Aug 23 2004, 07:43 AM
QUOTE
who is serge trifkovic
see for instance http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=serge+trifkovic I believe the review of the book has been posted in the Book folder
Posted by: Kaushal Aug 23 2004, 08:08 AM
QUOTE
All those BR-type nutcases who want to cosy up with Shite Iran should know that Mullahs and Mullahs and there is nothing wrong with a regime change in Iran. There are some brave Iranians who are still willing die and defy the tyranny of Islam that their ancestors received long ago. They need support and not the tyrants of Iran.
Rajita, while i agree with you that the Iranian ruling elite is still under the spell of the mullahs, it should be the attempt of the Indic civilization to drive a wedge between the Shiites and the rest, not in any underhanded way but openly based on ideological considerations. This does not mean cozying up to the mullahs (certainly not sharing any kind of nuclear technology) but opening up channels of communication. Whether this is possible or not is another matter, but no harm in trying. While doing so we should make it clear that we do not approve of the execution of 16 year old girls on trumped up charges of chastity. There are those in BR who feel that the iranian civilization (which is closest to the Indic among the Islamic ummah) offers such an opportunity. To that extent it is a worthwhile effort, but one that has to be carried out for decades to see any fruit. Such channels of communication have to begin at the NGO level, since it would be difficult to execute at the government level. The added bonus is that Indian Shias who form a substantial minority in India will tend to see the world the same way as we do. The premise here is that there is substantial debate within Iran as to the continued longevity of the mullahs in positions of power. of courwe i am in no position to judge the extent of the opposition to Mullahcracy in iran, but again Iran does offer a geopolitical opportunity Of course there are those who wish to exhibit their secular credentials by adopting the above posture, but such a stance is too transparent to be of any utility. In any event we can refrain from ascribing motives and characterizations of felllow Bharatiyas as nutcases, as much as possible and trust that the concerned BRites are motivated only by considerations of the greater good.
Posted by: rajesh_g Aug 23 2004, 11:27 AM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Aug 23 2004, 08:13 PM)
QUOTE
who is serge trifkovic
see for instance http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=serge+trifkovic I believe the review of the book has been posted in the Book folder
Thanks Kaushal, somehow couldnt find the review in book folder. sad.gif I should have phrased the question properly. I guess my question should have been - Hopefully Trifkovic is not a judeo-xtian apologist ? Its hard to figure that out unsure.gif Regards.
Posted by: Kaushal Aug 23 2004, 01:03 PM
rajesh,What makes you say he is a judeo-Xtian apologist (an apologist for whom). His book is very damning of islam. One does not have to condemn the frailties of every religion to be credible. The question is simple - are the facts as recounted by Trifvkovic accurate or are they not. If they are accurate , that itself stand as a damning idictment of Islam (one can sugarcoat it and call it islamism but basically it is none other than islam). That other religions have other 'faults' is beside the point. They should be discussed separately. One cannot adopt moral relativism and say others did it to, so that is why i did it and that makes it OK. There has been genocide by Xtians especially in the Americas, but the scale of the atrocities perptrated by Muslim sultans and Emperors is mindboggling and stands as a unique event in the history of mankind. There is nothing comparable in the rest of history in scale and magnitude of the slaughter, as Will Durant has remarked in his books. What is important is that there is hardly any refutation of the facts behind these assertions. Muslims will rarely say that these things did not happen. What they do claim is that their behavior is not very far away from the norms of other religions. One does not have to be a scholar to realize that such a statement is far from true.
Posted by: rajesh_g Aug 23 2004, 01:35 PM
Kaushal, Maybe you misunderstand. I didnt *say* that Trifkovic is a judeo-xtian apologist. I *asked*. These days you will find many in the US who will criticize islam. Their views about 'heathens' are worse. IMO we should keep tabs on such people and make sure they are not firing their bandooks from our shoulders.
Posted by: Sattva Aug 23 2004, 01:35 PM
Rajesh G Trifkovic is actually one of the best western analysts of Islam, you can't really describe him as an apologist...that would be the likes of William Dalrymple. Another Dalrymple, Theodore Dalrymple, is a very very good read on Islam, although he is not as direct as Trifkovic. Nevertheless, he is incisive. Read this Dalrymple article where he rips Islam and Communism. (Anthony Daniels is name of his) http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/oct02/havana.htm Dubai, Havana & choosing between evils by Anthony Daniels
Posted by: Sattva Aug 23 2004, 01:40 PM
Mohammed the child rapist -Muslims, while practicing Taqiyah, will always say that people are "misinterpretating Islamic texts." Well I have my own "interpretation" of an incident of Mohammed. It concerns his having sex with 9 year old Aisha. The way I interpret that, is that he RAPED a 9 year old girl, because 9 year olds dont consent to sex with 54 year old men http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.065 Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3311 Book 008, Number 3311: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3309 Book 008, Number 3309: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.
Posted by: Sattva Aug 23 2004, 01:57 PM
Is reform possible in Islam? I personally doubt it, because take a look at Chapter 4, verse 150-51 of the Koran. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.150 Surely those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and (those who) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: "We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. " These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement.
Posted by: bgrkumar Aug 23 2004, 02:37 PM
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit4%2Etxt&counter_img=4
QUOTE
Ms Sandhya Jain in her article, "Jihad vs the politically correct" (July 13), has mentioned about the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's claims that jihad has nothing to do with terror. Subsequently, Mr KV Paliwal in his letter, "Jihad and terror" (July 15), summarised that Islamic terrorism and jihad are synonymous. Jihad has deliberately been made to remain a controversial word, mainly by the Muslim intellectuals of the Aligarh school of thought. Efforts are being made to confuse Hin-dus, a jihad has two sharp divisions-(a) jihad Akbar (greater) and (b) jihad asgar (lesser). The former means jihad against one's own desires and is therefore for Muslims, while the latter is against the unbelievers. However, what affects the unbelievers is jihad asgar, which the Hindus had faced during the long spell of Islamic rule. The institution of jihad was started by the Prophet himself at Medina. His first victim was the Medina poetess Asma Bint Marwan who was assassinated by Umayr in January 624. Asma had both spoken and written despairingly of the Prophet. Another assassination was committed in February 624, at Medina. This time the victim was a centenarian poet, Abu Afak, who had composed some disloyal verses which annoyed the Muslims. Yet, another victim, Ka'b, son of AI-Ashraf, was killed in July 624 (Paul Fregosi in Jihad in the West). Since then, assassination has remained a powerful mode of vengance in Islam. Recently, Ejaz ul Haq, son of Gen Zia-ul Haq, who is currently the Minister of Religious Affair in Pakistan went on record saying, "One who does not believe in jihad is neither a Muslim nor a Pakistani." Many may not be aware of the mass execution of 600 to 800 men of the Jewish Beni Qureiga tribe of Medina. The carnage had started in the morning at a market place which continued till late evening. Since the institution of jihad was started by the Prophet himself, it cannot be separated from Islam. India has produced eminent Islamic scholars and the greatest among them was the 18th century Hakim-ul-lslam Shah Waliullah. His writings are widely accepted by Muslims the world over. While explaining the role of Caliph and his duties, he wrote: "...Organisation of jihad and making necessary arrangements for the same as, for example, marshalling an army, remunerating the combatants and distributing the booty among them..." The meaning of jihad becomes amply clear from Shah Waliullah's writings as far as non-believers are concerned. Ms Jain gives the example of Syed Ahmad Saheed who waged jihad in the early 19th century and other jihads in India. The fundamental question is, who imparted training to them? It is significant that both of them were brought up in Shah Waliullah's school of thought. In fact, Abdul Aziz had issued a Fatawa-i-Aziziah, in which he had declared India under an alien rule as the Dar-ul-harab (Saviours of Islamic). Conse quently, jihad was waged by Syed Ahmad and Shah Ismail and a hundred mullahs and maulvis from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, and Bihar had joined them by tracking 2400 km against the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Punjab. Naturally, therefore, jihad, as it is known to Hindus, is nothing but bloodshed, destruction of temples, rape, plunder and captives. Paul Pregosi states that the prime motive of fighting and waging jihad to early Arabs were plunder, slaves, women, and eagerness for death in fighting for Islam, which meant immediate entry into paradise for those who died in battle.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Aug 23 2004, 04:04 PM
While there is no doubt that the Mullahs of Iran are up to no good, I believe that a direct regime change by the US will not help Iran. We have had an example of it in Iraq. And it is unlikely things will go any better in Iran. Rather I believe it may be worse. Unless Bush gets relected the chances of a regime change in Iran are low, and at the end of it I believe the American Empire may have wasted too much of its resources to be in control. It could end up making things worse by outsourcing things to TSP. At this point we have no clear idea how the people of Iran actually feel- that is are the majority still satisfied or want a change. If it is the former more girls will be executed and we can do nothing about any of this. As an aside notice how the US is building up TSP again- all the good words about TSP and the attention has totally been drawn away from the real epicenter of Jihad to Iraq. The only reason we hear of TSP in the news is for some positive report of how they helped the US get Al Abdul Somebody. I believe we will see the effects of this in Afghanistan as pro-Paki factions are allowed by the US to gain power again and start Islamism all over again.
Posted by: Sattva Aug 23 2004, 07:01 PM
I hope everyone in this forum realizes the benefit of USA not taking the initiative in disarming TSP. Because this is a job for India, and India alone. Pakistan is a nation created and barely sustained by Islamic falsehoods, and if India and Hindus are going to get anywhere in this world, they must take a stand, and destroy TSP, a nation where Asuras and Rakshasas are bred on a mass scale. Pakistan must be controlled as a colony by the Indian state. Of course there must be no travel allowed for Muslims in Pakistan to India, and at the same time India must begin to dismantle the Asuric breeding grounds within India. Those breeding grounds are the Mosques and the Madrassas.
Posted by: Viren Aug 24 2004, 08:39 AM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=35361
QUOTE
The lives of Muslim women cannot be governed by archaic practices like triple talaq. Muslim women should be governed by laws that treat them as equal citizens of democratic India It will be no consolation for Saddiqunissa, from a village near Sitapur, UP, to learn that a very ill Kiran, 27 years old and a mother of three sons, was carried in her father’s arms to the Kakardooma court in New Delhi in a desperate attempt to pursue her application to seeking maintenance from her indifferent husband. So far there have only been adjournments. Like Kiran, millions of poor women are suffering the indignities of their husband’s neglect in a country where cultural pressures lead to parents marrying their daughters off either as part of dharma or sunna (farz). In Saddiqunissa’s case, Justice I.M. Quddusi of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad has rightly returned the maintenance application to the lower court to examine its merits, as well as to enquire and adjudicate accordingly whether or not the husband has followed correct talaq procedures. It appears that when Saddiqunissa filed an application for maintenance from her estranged husband, he divorced her and the lower court dismissed her application. She then went to the high court. If so, the dismissal of the maintenance application without relief being provided is illegal. After the judgment in Danial Lattifi & another (myself) Vs Union of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986, the Supreme Court has given a Muslim woman the right to receive maintenance for life from her husband even on divorce or until she re-marries. Therefore the question of maintenance not being granted in this particular case cannot even arise. In order to prevent the destitution and vagrancy that results from triple talaq, the implementation of the law pronounced is not optional but mandatory. However, the Muslim leadership, fully aware of the implications of this judgment, has taken no steps to create general awareness of it in backward areas. In the practice of Muslim law in India, the unilateral right of the Muslim husband to dissolve the contract of marriage is recognised. But in order to do away with inequalities, various judgments are bringing in an element of equity. As per the ruling of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, a talaq must be confirmed by the court in order to be valid, thereby taking away the instantaneous character from the tradition of triple talaq. This is applicable all over the country unless the high court of another state either disagrees with the decision or the Supreme Court sets the judgment aside. In the matter of Saddiqunissa, the high court rightly pointed out the necessary procedure for dissolving marriage. It also pointed out that talaq could not be given by the husband in one instance and only comes into force after a certain time (three months and a gap of one month in each pronouncement) which is meant for reconciliation and arbitration by friends and relatives. Finally, talaq has to be confirmed by a court, which has to hold that the marriage was dissolved on valid grounds. Only then would talaq become final. The case of Nagma Bibi of Orissa is important here. She was divorced by her husband in a drunken state. Next morning he realised he had committed a terrible mistake and wanted his wife back. She also wanted to go back but community leaders are preventing them from doing so. They have forcibly sent her with her three children to her father’s house. It is being suggested that Nagma Bibi will have to marry someone else and only upon being divorced by that person can she re-marry her husband. This practice is called Halala. Triple talaq and Halala are not prescribed in Quran, the main source of Shariat and Muslim law. These are social evils and not Islamic practices and only continue to be propagated because of the ignorance of community leaders as well as the community as a whole. The maintenance legislation passed in 2001 by Parliament does not include its benefits for Muslim women. The legislation needs to be amended to include Muslim women, irrespective of political implications. This is legally possible after the above-mentioned Supreme Court judgment passed in September 2001, challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986. Destitution, vagrancy, trafficking of neglected women does not vary with region, religion, caste or creed. The response to the basic right to life based on religion, with which the issue of maintenance of woman is linked, is unconstitutional and unethical. By suitably amending the maintenance legislation, we will preserve our diversity and pluralism. Equality before law and equal protection of law guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution would become a reality in the area of rights of maintenance of Indian women, who are dependent on their families for survival in the absence of any state social security.
Posted by: rajesh_g Aug 24 2004, 02:37 PM
ohmy.gif http://www.indiareacts.com/nati2.asp?recno=2744
QUOTE
11 May 2004: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and five other Arab states have jointly decided to promote liberal Islam in forty-nine countries, including India, to counter the negative image of that religion that has spread worldwide after 11 September. The GCC countries and Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Yemen and Egypt agreed to fund the liberal-Islam project last month, and the institution to spearhead the effort is the GCC Common Programmes and Productions (Culture), which designed the whole package. While diplomats said it was too early to say how the project would be implemented, they did admit that policy-makers, religious leaders, institutions, intellectuals and journalists would be familiarised with the “softer” face of Islam, and in the first phase, Asia and Africa would be covered, followed by Europe in about two years, and North America thereafter. While Indian government permission would be required for infusion of any project funds into the country, (now thats a novel thought) diplomats said the GCC was looking to, among other things, modernise the madrasas. “There is a sustained, malafide campaign going on against Islam, and it makes understanding of the religion even more difficult,” a diplomat said, “and India, because of its democracy, its large Muslim population, and its influence among Islamic countries has been especially chosen for the project.”
Posted by: Sattva Aug 24 2004, 03:34 PM
Such a blatant example of Taqiyah..."softer face" more like Janus face, give them a sunny side, hide the true dark nature of the beast
Posted by: acharya Aug 25 2004, 04:03 PM
Name of the Book Understanding the Muslim Leadership in India Editor S. Ubaidur Rahman Publisher Media Publications, New Delhi Year 2004 Pages 144 ISBN 81-88869-05-8 Price Rs. 175 With a population of some 150 million, the Indian Muslims are one of the largest Muslim communities in the world. As various studies have shown, they are also one of the most backward and deprived sections of Indian society. A major problem afflicting the Indian Muslims is the lack of effective community leadership. This owes to a host of factors, including the migration of large numbers of well-off Muslims to Pakistan in 1947, the strong hold of conservative ‘ulama and the growing threat of virulently anti-Muslim Hindu supremacist groups in the country. This book provides a broad perspective on the Muslim leadership in the country, discussing, through interviews, some of the salient issues that Indian Muslim leaders see as among the pressing priorities facing the community. In his introduction, Ubaidur Rahman laments the fact that the present-day Indian Muslim leadership has been unable to guide the community to play an effective role in the affairs of the country. While he admits that discrimination against Muslims is real enough and undeniable, he argues that Muslim leaders have themselves failed to raise the right issues for the community, focussing largely on controversial questions that set them against Hindus. While complaining about the manifold problems that the Muslims face, he says, they have done precious little to remedy the situation in practical terms. Not all the problems of the community can be attributed to the machinations of others, he says, for much of the community’s educational and economic backwardness owes to the reluctance of the community’s leaders to seriously deal with such questions. He also castigates community leaders of constantly bickering among themselves and being unable to work together. Making the problem even more acute, he says, are the seemingly interminable sectarian battles between the ‘ulama of different Muslim sects. The interviewees whose voices are recorded in this book include politicians, social activists, ‘ulama and journalists, thus providing a wide range of opinions on a host of issues facing the community. The bureaucrat-turned-politician Syed Shahabuddin discusses the serious infighting in the Majlis-i Mushawarat (‘The Muslim Consultative Council’), an organization that was established with the aim of uniting Muslim voters on the political plane in order to make them into a powerful electoral force. He argues for the need for Muslims and Muslim organizations to more closely interact and dialogue with the government, the media, and people of other faiths. Moosa Raza, a former Indian Administrative Service officers, argues on similar lines, stressing also the need for Muslim community leaders to focus on the educational and economic problems of the community, and to work with secular, including non-Muslim, groups for common purposes. Bashiruddin Babu Ahmad provides interesting glimpses of the efforts that Muslim organizations in his state of Karnataka are making to promote educational awareness in the community, while arguing for the need for north Indian Muslims to follow the south Indian example of institution building. On the other hand, Meem Afazl, a well-known Urdu journalist and secretary of the Congress Party’s minorities’ cell, hardly addresses the question of Muslim political empowerment, and contents himself with the pious, and probably self-serving, claim that the Congress party alone is able to guarantee Muslims their due share in the governance of the country. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, one of the few Muslim leaders in the Hindu fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argues on similar lines, holding hi own party as the only one capable of protecting Muslim interests, completely ignoring, of course, the BJP’s vehemently anti-Muslim agenda. Several of the interviewees are trained ‘ulama, and they offer interesting perspectives on how Muslims as a minority can balance their commitments to what, at least in theory, is a secular state, on the one hand, and to Islam as a universal religion, on the other. Maulana Shafi Moonis, a major ideologue of the Jama‘at-i Islami, argues for the need for Muslims to join hands with secular political parties in order to promote genuine secularism and democracy in the country, while at the same time working to preserve and promote their Islamic identity. He discusses in this regard the work of the Jama‘at in dialoguing with Hindus. Sadatullah Hussaini, president of the Jama‘at’s student wing, Students Islamic Organisation, talks about the various activities of his organization, such as literacy campaigns in poor Muslim localities and promoting Islamic awareness among Muslim youth. He stresses that much more needs to be done, and argues for the need for Muslims to set up their own non-governmental organizations that are rooted in grassroots communities. Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, another Jama‘at activist, talks about the role of the Jami‘at us-Salihat in promoting secular as well as Islamic education among Muslim girls, seeing it as a model that could be followed elsewhere. Other ‘ulama and Islamic activists discuss a range of vexed issues facing the community that continue to remain unresolved. Syed Qasim Rasul, convenor of the Muslim Personal Law Board’s Babri Masjid Committee and editor of the Urdu monthly Afkar-i Milli, reflects on the Babri mosque controversy. He says that many Muslims are willing to accept the verdict of the courts on the issue, and goes so far as to declare that if it is proved that the Babri mosque stood on the site of a temple, Muslims would gladly hand the disputed land over to the Hindus, for a mosque, he says, cannot stand on land usurped through wrong means. Maulana Syed Nizamuddin, general-secretary of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, argues on somewhat similar lines. Maulana Abdul Wahhab Khilji of the Markazi Jami‘at-i Ahl-i Hadith speaks on another contentious issue, that of fierce sectarian wranglings between the Ahl-i Hadith and the ‘ulama of the Deobandi sect. He claims, with little justification however, that his own sect has had no role to play whatsoever in fanning sectarianism, laying the entire blame on the Deobandis instead. Ejaz Ali, convenor of the All-India Backward Muslim Morcha, raises yet another hugely controversial question, that of the plight of the ‘lower’ caste Muslims, who form the vast majority of the Muslim population in the country, but whose representation in Muslim organizations is minimal. He critiques the government for denying ‘low’ caste Muslims the same rights and facilities as are presently available to ‘low’ caste Hindus, arguing that this is a direct violation of the Indian state’s claim to secularism. Zafrul Islam Khan discusses the organized campaign against Muslim madrasas as ‘dens of terror’. He points out the hollowness of this claim, and while acknowledging that the present madrasa system is in urgent need of reform, he insists that the allegation that Indian madrasas are training grounds for terrorists is completely misplaced. The memory recent pogrom in Gujarat, in which several thousand Muslims were killed, continues to haunt India, some holding it out as a sign of worse things to come if inter-communal relations continue to worsen. Siraj Tirmizi, editor of Gujarat Today, the only Muslim-owned Gujarati daily, and Shafi Madani, chairman of the Islami Relief Committee of Gujarat, both recount the brutality of the massacres, while Shirin and Zakia Jafri talk about Ahsan Jafri, a Gujarati Muslim Congress leader and social activist who was murdered in the course of the state-sponsored genocide. Ramesh Gujar, president of the Gujarat unit of the Dalit Sena, reflects on the use of Dalits and Tribals by Hindu fascist organizations in Gujarat to systematically wipe out Muslims, while at the same time ensuring that the subordination of the ‘low’ castes continues undisturbed. Amarsinh Choudhry, a former Gujarat Chief Minister, raises similar issues. Justice Hospet Suresh, formerly of the Mumbai High Court, links the massacre in Gujarat to state policies, critiquing various draconian laws that have recently been enforced that primarily target marginalized groups such as Muslims, Tribals and Dalits. Several Kashmiri voices are included in this volume, and they all argue on roughly similar lines. Maulvi Abbas Ansari claims that the Hurriyat Conference is the true representative of the Kashmiri people, conveniently ignoring the fact that significant sections of Kashmir’s population, including the Sikhs and Hindus of Jammu, the Buddhists of Ladakh, the Shi‘as of Kargil and the Bakkarwals and Gujjars of Rajouri and Poonch have no voice in this almost wholly Kashmiri Muslim outfit. Syed Ali Shah Gilani, the hardline Kashmiri Jama‘at-i Islami ideologue, echoes Ansari in insisting on the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris, but frames this demand in supposedly ‘Islamic’ terms. He claims that the movement in Kashmir is an ‘Islamic’ one, without of course bothering to even interrogate alternative explanations of the phenomenon. As in Ansari’s case, he focuses his ire on Indian state repression, while sparing Pakistan and the militants of even the mildest criticism. Like Ansari, he conveniently ignores the fact that large sections of the population of Jammu and Kashmir would definitely not wish Kashmir to join Pakistan, a demand that Gilani has consistently been making. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq comes out as relatively somewhat moderate, stressing the need for an end to the violence in Kashmir and for a peaceful resolution to the dispute based on dialogue between Pakistan, India and the representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. While, overall, the book does provide some interesting perspectives on the present-day Indian Muslim leadership, it suffers from a definite lack of depth and focus. The interviews are too short to deal with the range of complex issues that they seek to discuss, as a result of which the responses seem somewhat shallow and superficial, and at times appear as sheer propaganda. One wonders why three non-Muslims appear here, given that the book purports to deal with the question of the Muslim leadership in India. Then again, the voices included here could hardly be said to be representative of all the major shades of Muslim opinion in India. In the case of the ‘ulama, for instance, Deobandi, Barelvi and Shi’a voices are distinct by their absence. Almost all the interviewees are north Indians, and thus can hardly be said to reflect the views of Muslims from other parts of the country. Important issues such as inter-faith dialogue and women’s empowerment, are almost wholly ignored. The book also suffers from poor editing and numerous typographical and other errors. Yet, despite these limitations, it is to be welcomed for it does provide valuable insights on some of the major issues that Muslims in India are today having to deal with.
Posted by: Mudy Aug 26 2004, 10:01 AM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=35465&headline=Madrasas~warn~Mulayam:~Don’t~lecture~us
QUOTE
Annual examinations are held, but marksheets are rarely distributed ..... ‘‘Our principal target is to enable the students to read and recite the Koran so that they can earn a livelihood by becoming maulvis,’’
QUOTE
Established in 1982, this madrasa was recognised by the Government three years later. But it is yet to be declared an aided institute. ‘‘We somehow arrange the funds to pay the monthly salaries of our nearly 25 teachers. We have been runing from pillar to post to get government aid,’’ added Haq. With a total of about 500 students, the madrasa provides education upto the ‘‘Alim’’ (intermediate) level. But the subjects vary widely from what is taught in schools governed by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. Students have to opt for one second language — Hindi or English, while all other subejcts are taught in Urdu. There is no Science or any Commerce subjects. ‘‘We now have one computer but that cannot cater to the requirement of 500 students,’’ pointed out Haq.
Posted by: Viren Aug 27 2004, 07:19 AM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=35450
QUOTE
Rashid has alleged the assault was the result of a series of articles the daily Urdu Times has carried over the past few months, which ``instigated'' Muslims against Rashid over his criticism of triple talaq and other issues.
Posted by: Kaushal Aug 27 2004, 08:22 AM
From the link posted by Mudy - vis a vis the proposal to streamline the curriculum - euphemism to include subjects other than the Koran, which is al that is taught. What is a secular government doing aiding religious instruction in the first place
QUOTE
However, far from welcoming the proposal, most of the city’s madrasas have expressed strong reservations. There are about 40 madrasas just in the city alone. The total number for the entire State is about 1,100, out of which 291 get aid from the State Government.
Posted by: Sattva Aug 28 2004, 09:40 PM
Ok so Mohammed commits mass genocide of 900 Jews in Khaibar, then takes one (Safiya) of their wives and forcibly marries her the same night. Of course, he no doubt subsequently raped her. This hadith very succinctly explains what Mohammed did. Mass genocide of the men, captivity of the women (some like Safiya, for sexual use) and children. Muslims would later follow this example in India. For instance, Mahmud of Ghori once took 500,000 slaves after capturing one city. Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512: Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.512 Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367: Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/008.sbt.html#001.008.367 its ironic that Mohammed "manummitted" (free from slavery) Safiya. As if she had any choice whether or not to be his wife lol
Posted by: Sattva Aug 28 2004, 09:54 PM
Islamic punishment for unbelievers (22:18-22) Mohammed was one of the cruelest men to ever live. What kind of a twisted individual would even imagine the punishment that he did? "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are whips of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/022.qmt.html#022.019 Mohammed was a sadist and a sexual deviant. And since Muslims consider him to be the last messenger of God...and try to imitate his lifestyle....
Posted by: Mudy Aug 29 2004, 08:05 AM
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEL20040828064338&Page=L&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&Topic=0&MUZAFFARNAGAR:~In~a~gruesome~incident,~a~four-year-old~girl~was~allegedly~beheaded~after~being~gang-raped~by~three~teenagers~who~have~been~arrested,~police~said~on~Saturday... Saturday August 28 2004 16:10 IST PTI MUZAFFARNAGAR: In a gruesome incident, a four-year-old girl was allegedly beheaded after being gang-raped by three teenagers who have been arrested, police said on Saturday. The three accused, Anis, Taj and Mukim, aged between 15 to 18, were arrested on Friday for the crime, Senior Superintendent of Police S A Rizvi said, adding that the body of the victim has been recovered. The accused have confessed to the crime, Rizvi said. The minor was taken the fields where the three accused allegedly raped her and later beheaded her.
Posted by: Peregrine Aug 29 2004, 04:27 PM
A RARE ADMISSION BY A MUSLIM OF THE GENOCIDE PERPETRATED UPON THE HINDUS AND DESTRUCTION OF HINDU TEMPLES BY MUSLIM INVADERS http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4 Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens In a tranquil place like St Andrews, there are not many distractions, so I have been reading lots of history and trying to reflect on its lessons. For some time now, I have been interested in the dynamics of Hindu-Muslim relations, and the impact of ancient enmities and grievances on current Indo-Pak relations. We have forgotten much of our past, but it nonetheless affects our daily lives. For instance, when we now think of the Afghan city of Kandahar, we equate it with the Taliban. But its original name was Gandhara, and it was a part of the ancient Buddhist civilisation with its capital city in Taxila. Swat, Peshawar and the Kabul Valley were all included in this thriving, peaceful community that had absorbed Mediterranean culture brought to the subcontinent by Alexander, and before him, by Greek mercenaries and traders. While it was no utopia, it was a stable, prosperous civilisation that threatened none of its neighbours, and has bequeathed us a wealth of artefacts that attest to its high level of cultural development. The reason I mention this period of history is to try and understand the bitterness that must exist in many Hindu minds over the Muslim conquest of their country. In his Story of Civilisation, Will Durant writes: “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history”. While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan. The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried. Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. When the British exposed the decadence of the Moghuls and seized power, the Muslims — especially the aristocracy — tried to cut deals with the new rulers to ensure that they would be treated differently from the Hindus. It has been argued by some historians that Pakistan was really created to ensure that the Muslim ruling class would not be subject to Hindu rule in an undivided India. But having created Pakistan, the ruling elites promptly started lording it over the Bengalis of East Pakistan. What, after all, is the point of being descendants of Tughlak, Aibak and Mahmud if there is no under-class to persecute and exploit? This, then, is the Hindu perspective of the Muslim invasion of their country. After centuries of first Muslim and then British rule, they are finally in charge of their destiny. For the first time in modern history, Indians feel that they can play a role on the world stage in keeping with their numbers and the size of their country. Pakistan, especially its establishment and military, is smarting from successive military defeats and the steady diminishing of its international image. Due to their long domination of much of India, [/SIZE=7]the Muslim elite in Pakistan feels it has some kind of divine right to be treated on a par with India.[/SIZE] With this psychological and historical baggage, both sides are unable to engage constructively with each other. Many Hindus feel they have centuries of humiliation to avenge. And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors. This reality makes the Hindu-Muslim divide all the more bitter, for it pits brother against brother. And as students of Moghul history are aware, this is perhaps the bloodiest kind of conflict. By ties of consanguinity, culture, geography, and history, there is far more that unites than divides Indian Hindus and Muslims. But the politics of self-interest, too often garbed in the banner of faith, has pushed them far apart. Why resurrect these ghosts from history? Because until we have confronted the demons from our past, we cannot understand the dynamics of contemporary events. As India and Pakistan go through the intricate steps of peace talks, each side needs to know what makes the other tick. Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens. A study and understanding of the past will promote better understanding between the two communities. It is important that Hindus grasp the central fact that their Muslim neighbours cannot now be held responsible for the persecution of their ancestors, and Muslims must face the fact that they are not the political heirs of the emperors Babar and Akbar. Time is a great leveller; it is also a great healer. Cheers
Posted by: Sattva Aug 29 2004, 05:52 PM
QUOTE
These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage
Husain seems to imply that the Muslim invaders were wrong in claiming so. I beg to differ. For example, lets take a look at Timur's justification - from his autobiography - for invading India, and how it clearly shows the Koran in action. http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_malfuzat_frameset.htm [p. 8] The Emperor Timur - An Autobiographical Memoir The History Of My Expedition Against Hindustan About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a ghazi, and if he is slain he becomes a martyr. It was on this account that I formed this resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Kuran, and the verse I opened upon was this, "O Prophet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers and treat them with severity." What Timur read was verse 9:73 (the translation has been watered down) "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.073 or maybe he read 9:123 O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123 and yes, the koran does tell muslims to smite the unbelievers at the neck in war "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish" (47:004) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004
Posted by: Peregrine Aug 30 2004, 12:44 AM
QUOTE (Sattva @ Aug 30 2004, 06:22 AM)
Husain seems to imply that the Muslim invaders were wrong in claiming so. I beg to differ. For example, lets take a look at Timur's justification - from his autobiography - for invading India, and how it clearly shows the Koran in action.
Sattva : This is the First Article by a Muslim that at least admits the Pillage, Plunder, Slaughter etc. perpetrated by Muslim Invaders. I see it as a start. One could say that it is too little too late though I would take it as It is never too late. May be some of us can at least thank him for the Article in a Lotastaani News Paper in which he highlights the Atrocities committed by the Muslim Invaders. In the Totally Fundamentalist dominated Religion of Islam it takes some doing on Mr. Husain’s part to admit to the TRUTH. Who knows a day might come when the Muslims would accept that the Quran’s exhortations of Slaughter, if they did not Convert to Islam, of Non-Muslims was either wrong or it could also be that they were not the words as conveyed to the Prophet but were added on by others as part of the Bedouin culture. Cheers
Posted by: Viren Aug 31 2004, 07:43 AM
France in 2070 http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40829.htm
Posted by: Krishna Aug 31 2004, 11:17 AM
QUOTE (Viren @ Aug 31 2004, 09:43 AM)
France in 2070 http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40829.htm
Man, that send the hibbie jibbies down the spine. Next time give a warning or something............but anyway, why should it matter let the West screw itself while we're doing the same not-to-hurt-the-feelings-of-the-you-know-what-community.. Just imagine this in India.......not that it's any different right now. There's only one solution to this problem......unfortunately it's politically incorrect.
Posted by: k.ram Aug 31 2004, 12:18 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/29/do2903.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/29/ixportal.html
Posted by: k.ram Aug 31 2004, 12:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/index.html
Posted by: k.ram Sep 1 2004, 06:56 AM
http://www.anamoqawem.org/berlincall.htm
Posted by: Sriram Kaushik Sep 1 2004, 11:03 AM
http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=54230# Islam is a religion of love and compassion Islam means peace. It is a religion of compassion. This is done by the Americans and the blame is put on the Pious Muslim Mujahideen of Iraq to defame them. Islam recommends war against aggressors and if these nepalese really travelled to assist the Americans in subjugation of Muslims, then by Allah, it is legal to execute them. Only it should be done by beheading in public. Maybe these Nepalese were really the agents of the Americans so their killing is justified. Or else this can be a propaganda by the Americans. Islam is love, peace and tolerance. Islam kills only for love and peace. Posted by: Mohammad Omar Sharee, India, 01-09-2004 at 1355 hours IST http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=54230#
Posted by: Sudhir Sep 1 2004, 11:48 AM
What’s more despicable? The contents of the post in the Indian Express page linked by Kaushik or Indian Express allowing such posts which justifies barbarism and endorses public beheading? thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif Hello, where’s the secular brigade when you need it?
Posted by: shiv Sep 2 2004, 02:22 AM
QUOTE (Sriram Kaushik @ Sep 1 2004, 11:33 PM)
http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=54230# Islam is a religion of love and compassion Islam means peace. It is a religion of compassion. This is done by the Americans and the blame is put on the Pious Muslim Mujahideen of Iraq to defame them. Islam recommends war against aggressors and if these nepalese really travelled to assist the Americans in subjugation of Muslims, then by Allah, it is legal to execute them. Only it should be done by beheading in public. Maybe these Nepalese were really the agents of the Americans so their killing is justified. Or else this can be a propaganda by the Americans. Islam is love, peace and tolerance. Islam kills only for love and peace. Posted by: Mohammad Omar Sharee, India, 01-09-2004 at 1355 hours IST http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=54230#
Actually this is a funny letter - and I think this letter writer is using a perfect opportunity to be sarcastic and show the gentleness and compassion of the faith. I have never seen the usual fundoos use the word "pious Musliam Mujahiddeen" - which sounds suspicious. Usually Mujs are "brave warriors". And of course the fundamental mistake that no real Muslim makes - Islam means "submission" - which is what are all are supposed to do.
Posted by: Peregrine Sep 2 2004, 09:49 AM
shiv : I think the last sentence tells it all : Islam kills only for love and peace. furious.gif Cheers
Posted by: k.ram Sep 2 2004, 12:21 PM
http://www.kashmirherald.com/bookreviews/anatomyofislamism.html Anyone read this book?
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 2 2004, 05:41 PM
Islam is peaceful onlee.. http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/YoginderSikand/WarisMazhariHinduMuslim.htm
QUOTE
[Waris Mazhari is the editor of the Urdu monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-‘Ulum, the official organ of the Delhi-based Tanzim-i Abna ul-Qadim Dar ul-‘Ulum Deoband (Deoband Madrasa Old Boys' Association). In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he talks about Hindu-Muslim relations and intra-Muslim sectarian disputes in present-day India.]
He goes on and on about how all this is unislamic , how hindus are muskrin but not really mushkrin etc.. ( my guess is the questions are lollipop type)
QUOTE
Q: Some Muslim writers argue that Hindus, not being traditionally considered as ‘people of the book’ (ahl-i kitab), and hence as zimmis (‘protected people’), should be viewed by Muslims as similar to the Arab Qur’aish polytheists (mushrikin) of the Prophet’s time, and hence must be regarded as enemies. What do you feel about this argument? A: I completely disagree with this. While the Hindus and the pre-Islamic Qur’aish could be said to be both mushrikin, the commandments (ahkam) related to both are quite different. This is because the context is so very different in the two cases. The Qur’aish were violently opposed to Islam and the Muslims. They launched several bloody wars against the Prophet and his companions. The commandments in the Qur’an and the Hadith about the polytheists, such as warning Muslims to shun them or consider them as enemies, must be seen as related to that context. At a time when the life of the Prophet and the future of his mission were under grave and violent threat, naturally such strictures had to be imposed and followed. However, the case of the Hindus today is entirely different. As a community, the Hindus are not violently opposed to Islam, although some individual Hindus undoubtedly are. Further, even those Hindus who are vehemently opposed to Islam do not pose a threat to its very existence, as was the case with the Qur’aish when Muhammad launched his mission, since Islam is now a well-established global religion. Then again, while the early Muslims had to suffer religious persecution, in India today Muslims, like other people, enjoy religious freedom. This suggests that although both the pre-Islamic Qur’aish and the Hindus could be considered to be mushrikin in religious terms, the rules that govern relations between Muslims and them must be different. In contrast to their relations with the pre-Islamic Quraish, Muslims need to relate to the Hindus through dialogue. We need to build relations of friendship, and work with them on issues of common concern, while also carrying on with the task of tabligh. This said, I must admit that some ‘ulama wrongly treat the pre-Islamic Qur’aish and the present-day Hindus as identical in terms of the rules (ahkamat) that ought to govern the ways in which Muslims relate to them. Thus, for instance, they argue that the Qur’anic commandment to the Muslims to fight the unbelievers until persecution is no more and religion is only for Allah applies in the case of the Hindus, too, while actually, as I understand it, it refers specifically to the early Muslim community suffering the persecution of the Quraish mushrikin, who posed a real and major threat to the very existence of the Prophet and the movement that he had launched. It certainly does not mean, as some Muslim scholars claim, that Muslims must today wield the sword against all non-Muslims in order to establish Islam. Islam cannot be imposed on anyone, and in any case the Qur’an allows for violence only in defence. It is sheer foolishness, in addition to being wholly un-Islamic, to imagine that Islam can be established through violent or offensive means. The only proper method for conveying the Islamic message is through peaceful persuasion or tabligh. In the Indian context, this calls for Muslims to work towards building better relations with Hindus, rather than branding all Hindus as necessarily enemies of Islam.
How tolerant !! But then look here..
QUOTE
Q: This is as far as the different Sunni groups are concerned. What about the Shi’as? A: The matter is a little more complicated here, as there are certain Shi’a groups with whom we Sunnis differ on matters of basic beliefs. Some Shi’a sects believe that the Qur’an has been distorted or that Imam Ali was God. Naturally, we cannot consider them as Muslims. Flush.gif On the other hand, many other Shi’as, particularly the largest Shi’a group, the Twelve Imami or Ithna Ashari Shi’as, do not hold such views and, in many matters of basic beliefs are much closer to the Sunnis despite their differences in understanding Islamic history and jurisprudence That is why some leading Deobandi ‘ulama, such as Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Mahmud ul-Hasan Gangohi, considered them as fellow Muslims. True, some Deobandis in Pakistan insist that the Ithna Asharis be declared non-Muslims, but not all Deobandis, even in Pakistan, hold that opinion. As a Sunni I don’t accept all the beliefs of the Ithna Ashari Shi’as as valid, but I still consider them to be part of the wider Muslim ummat, and hence feel the need for us to work together on issues of common concern.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Sep 2 2004, 06:17 PM
They call that Islamic love-making or tough love. specool.gif See, it does not matter what a Mujahid does when he is in this world, blowing up people, slitting their throats or castrating them. When does all this and ascends to the Allahic paradise he gets to continuously make love with the Houris (oops was it white grapes?) and boys aplenty in peace. So how can anyone question the claim that Islam is a religion of love and peace? rolleyes.gif
Posted by: Krishna Sep 2 2004, 07:16 PM
This is what one should ask to a muslim, with a in-your-face mode attitude, when they are giving the islam-is-a-religion-of-load-of-peace-n'-shtuff: "If islam is peaceful then what happens to the command in koran where all muslims are asked to work towards one kingdom under allah. If islam is peaceful and ok with other religions then what's up with the need for having islam as the only religion in the world?? why can't you live happily ever after with all other religions since you're so peaceful?????" There is no xplanantion for this contradiction unless you are willing to accept the truth, which is islam is peaceful as long as it is under minority.....waiting for the right time to strike. N' when it becomes majority.........it's hell for non-muslims.........check that Paris article.... laterz...
Posted by: bengurion Sep 4 2004, 04:33 AM
The killing of 12 nepali hostages in iraq Its very cruel... just right click and download..to watch http://www.shortfamilyonline.com/life/files/NepaleseExecutions.wmv Is there any chance of reformation in Islam!! ?? Sankar
Posted by: Sunder Sep 4 2004, 09:15 AM
QUOTE (bengurion @ Sep 4 2004, 05:03 PM)
Is there any chance of reformation in Islam!! ?? Sankar
The universe will collapse trying to come to terms with this. the answer is a big NO. read NeethiShathakam and you will understand why Islam cannot be reformed.
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 4 2004, 09:35 AM
Dr Shiv ( London returned ) wrote : > http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=54230# > Actually this is a funny letter - and I think this letter writer is using a perfect opportunity to be sarcastic and show the gentleness and compassion of the faith. I have never seen the usual fundoos use the word "pious Musliam Mujahiddeen" - which sounds suspicious. Usually Mujs are "brave warriors". And of course the fundamental mistake that no real Muslim makes - Islam means "submission" - which is what are all are supposed to do. smile.gif Yes Of course. , I mean the Sarcasm. BTW , when you say most Indians are candlewalahs ..were you being sarcastic ?
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 4 2004, 09:39 AM
> Krish , right question , but you ask to out it to wrong set of ppl, this question shld be put to "professional" secularist. Ahh ... shld be read as "Krish , right question , but you shld ask this question to "professional" secularist.
Posted by: bengurion Sep 4 2004, 09:53 AM
Then why can't the world plan for getting the "CULT" exterminated...World will be a little peaceful place to live then on... But, indian media is busy projecting the "good" of Islam...and there are leaders to recognize "Madraasas" and start more of it (everybody knows that its the place for brainwashing hapless, jobless, islamic youth into terrorists to slit open throats of innocents..)..! Its not surprising to imagine in 50-100 years from now India will be a Islamic state.. (following sharia law, and hanging people in public for adultry)!! Sankar
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 4 2004, 09:54 AM
Some Jewels abt Islam .. Kind Attn Shiv Shastri http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=226 8/27/2004 Clip No. 226 Friday Sermon on Qatar TV: With Some Women, Life is Impossible Unless You Carry a Rod The following are excerpts from a Friday sermon aired live on Qatar TV on August 27: We must know that [wife] beating is a punishment in Islamic religious law. No one should deny this because this was permitted by the Creator of Man, and because when you purchase an electric appliance or a car you get instructions - a catalogue, explaining how to use it. The Creator of Man has sent down this book [the Koran] in order to show Man which ways he must choose. ...........
Posted by: Nalwa Sep 4 2004, 12:47 PM
Slowly but surely the world is waking upto the EVIL that is Islam: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28066.htm
Posted by: Peregrine Sep 4 2004, 01:10 PM
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/473355.html CAIRO, Egypt - Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism, a humiliating and painful truth that must be acknowledged, a prominent Arab writer and television executive wrote Saturday as Middle East media and officials registered their horror at the bloody rebel siege of a Russian school. Unusually forthright self-criticism followed the end of the hostage crisis, along with warnings such actions inflict more damage to the image of Islam than all its enemies combined could hope. Arab leaders and Muslim clerics denounced the school seizure as unjustifiable and expressed their sympathy. Russian commandos stormed the school Friday in Beslan, Russia; it had been taken over apparently by rebels demanding independence for Chechnya. Death toll reports ran as high as 250, with twice as many wounded. Many of the casualties were children. Images of terrified young survivors being carried from the scene aired repeatedly on Arab TV stations. Pictures of dead and wounded children ran on front pages of Arab newspapers Saturday. "Holy warriors" from the Middle East long have supported fellow Muslims fighting in Chechnya, and Russian officials said nine or 10 Arabs were among militants killed. "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television wrote in his daily column published in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. It ran under the headline, "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!" Al-Rashed ran through a list of recent attacks by Islamic extremist groups - in Russia, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - many of which are influenced by the ideology of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of al-Qaida terror network. "Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims," he wrote. Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless "we admit the scandalous facts," rather than offer condemnations or justifications. "The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us," al-Rashed wrote. Contributors to Islamic Web sites known for their extremist content had mixed reactions on the hostage crisis, with some praising the separatists as holy warriors. Others wrote that people should wait until the militants had been identified before implicating Arabs in the drama. A statement in the name of The Islambouli Brigades posted Saturday on an Internet site known for its militant content, meanwhile, distanced the group from the school attack, though it did not criticize the Chechen rebels it indicated were behind it and called the hostage-takers demands "justified." There was no way to verify its authenticity. "We in al-Islambouli Brigades, although we bless the efforts of our brothers in Chechnya in defending their honor and their religion, announce that we have no relationship with any cell of the cells that carried out the Ossetia operation, and that we didn't contribute with any munitions or money in this operation," the statement said. "The dirty Russian government carries all the responsibility and the repercussions of this operation," it said. Ahmed Bahgat, an Egyptian Islamist, wrote in his column in Egypt's leading pro-government newspaper, Al-Ahram, that hostage-takers in Russia as well as in Iraq are only harming Islam. "If all the enemies of Islam united together and decided to harm it ... they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations, and misunderstanding of the nature of this age," Bahgat wrote. The horrifying images of the dead and wounded Russian students "showed Muslims as monsters who are fed by the blood of children and the pain of their families." An editorial in the Saudi English-language Arab News put some blame for the bloody end to the school siege on Vladimir Putin, saying the Russian president couldn't afford to lose his "tough-man image." But it added that "the Chechens, with the choice of their targets, had put themselves in a position where no one would shed tears when the punishment came. They reached a new low when they chose toddlers as bargaining chips." Heads of state from Egypt, Lebanon and Kuwait offered their sympathy Friday to Russian officials and to the families of people caught up in the hostage drama. A prominent Muslim cleric also denounced it. "What is the guilt of those children [in Russia]? Why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government?" Egypt's top Muslim cleric, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, was quoted as saying during a Friday sermon in Banha, 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of Cairo. "You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims," Tantawi, who heads Al-Azhar University, the highest authority in the Sunni Islamic world, was quoted by Egypt's Middle East News agency as saying. Cheers
Posted by: Krishna Sep 4 2004, 01:27 PM
QUOTE (Bhootnath @ Sep 4 2004, 11:39 AM)
> Krish , right question , but you ask to out it to wrong set of ppl, this question shld be put to "professional" secularist. Ahh ... shld be read as "Krish , right question , but you shld ask this question to "professional" secularist.
BhootNath, I throw that to every secularist, muslim, n' DDM types.......' trust me, no mercy is shown. You gotta nail 'em down.
Posted by: Sattva Sep 4 2004, 01:37 PM
Again, if someone wants to know if reformation in Islam is possible, please read verse 4:150-151 of the Koran. If you are not allowed to choose between this verse and that verse, and must follow the entire Koran, then there can be no reformation, as Muslims must follow the kill and rape the kaffir verses
Posted by: Pathmarajah Sep 5 2004, 04:54 AM
"The tapes gave way and the bombs fell" Inept bungling fools. dry.gif These terrorist acts all over the world in the last five years are lessons for the western world due to their pretencious views of Islam. Slowly but surely they are leaning the true nature of this religion. But it started way back in 1947 in a most horrific way. The pretense must now fall. I am happy to think that the line has been crossed and worldwide retribution is just a step away. Now the world will give lessons to inept India on how to deal with terrorists who thanks to MSMs have been having pretencious views of muslims. Regards. Pathma
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 5 2004, 06:15 AM
> Now the world will give lessons to inept India on how to deal with terrorists who thanks to MSMs have been having pretencious views of muslims. 1. Slaves , even if not requiring lessons, always feel priviledged ..even if the Massah spits on them .. so if you think you post will make the slaves fidget , you sir are off the mark. 2.. I am happy to think that the line has been crossed and worldwide retribution is just a step away I Hope that it happens , I wish your conclusion is right that things will eventually change ..
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 5 2004, 06:19 AM
In the meanwhile Mohammad once again is with Islamist ..as usual he has betrayed the women folk of Islam ... I really wish this happened to folks of Seculars ...those talk abt endless Dialogues and Understanding .. I think today I cld say this standing face to face with them. http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/05jk.htm Home > News > PTI J&K militants tonsure heads of four women September 05, 2004 16:32 IST Four young women, who were abducted and later tortured militants in Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir, were rescued by troops of Rashtriya Rifles, official sources said in Srinagar. A group of militants belonging to Hizbul Mujahideen intercepted four young girls in Chniyas area of Gandoh tehsil in Doda district a few days back and later abducted them, they said. Blaming them as informers of the security forces, militants tortured, beat and molested them and later tonsured their heads, sources said. The RR troops later launched a rescue operation and after a brief gunbattle managed to secure release of the women from the capativity of militants yesterday, they said. These four victims have been identified as Naseema Bano, Manira Bano, Nasreena Begum and Shabina of Chinayas village, they said. The four women are currently under the protection of security forces in their village.
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 5 2004, 10:19 AM
http://ww1.mid-day.com/news/city/2004/september/91708.htm Where Indian Muslims have gone wrong By: Aakar Patel September 5, 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An event occurred two weeks ago that should upset all of us. Sajid Rashid, the editor of Mahanagars Hindi edition was stabbed in his Mahim office after an Urdu newspaper accused him of blasphemy. The paper, Urdu Times, wrote that Sajid Rashid had insulted the prophet Muhammad by printing a headline that actually referred to Muhammad bin Tughlaq. The punishment for blasphemy in Islam is death (over 200 people have been sentenced in Pakistan alone in the last two decades) and the article inspired someone to deliver this to Sajid. Not only was the paper unrepentant, it justified the attack and republished (and once again misinterpreted) the Mahangar headlines further provoking hatred. It did so because it was confident that its readership would approve. Here lies the problem of Muslims in India. Other than a very small secularised minority, the community is not equipped to handle modernity and concepts such as free speech, secularism and the rights of individuals. Indeed, it is deeply uncomfortable with them. A recent poll revealed that just under 90 per cent of Mumbais Muslims, presumably the most progressive in the country, rejected a secular civil code preferring instead Shariah law, favouring polygamy, triple talaq and Islams unequal inheritance laws which allow women half as much property as they allow men. The views of most younger and educated Muslims and of women were also the same, in almost the same proportion. Thus they were silent over the criminal attack on Sajid because it avenged the highest possible crime that of apostasy. Muslims are incapable of social reform because they do not view change from Islamic practice as reform but as heresy. In Turkey, the only secular Muslim nation, reform has come over 80 years at the point of the armys gun and forced onto a generally unwilling population that prefers Islamist parties. This incapability has been understood by many who tried to reform Indian Muslims. Sir Syed Ahmed in the 19th century urged Muslims to take up western education, Allama Iqbal in 1929 delivered his lectures on reconstructing the ossified Islamic thought from within and Jinnah spoke of a secular democracy in his new Pakistan. All three were either ignored or misunderstood. Dr Rafiq Zakaria has made a bold attempt to pull Muslims into the 21st century with his new book Indian Muslims: Where have they gone wrong? The book is a collection of his articles dating back to the 40s and a testament to the consistency of his views. He was shaken and disturbed deeply by Partition, which he opposed and which he believes is the primary reason for the wretched state Muslims find themselves in. He writes that the partition of India was actually the partition of Muslims, dividing them into three groups having no contact with one another and leaving the largest, in India, at the mercy of Hindus. Today, unrepresented in politics, lagging behind in economics, massacred in Gujarat and increasingly retreating from the state, the Muslims in India are in a dreadful situation. Zakaria feels that change must come to the community urgently. Viewing America Events in the world however are taking Muslims further away from the mainstream in India. Muslims are furious with America for its war on terror. Stories about Iraq, Palestine and Chechnya dominate every Urdu newspapers front page daily, even in Mumbai. Urdu newspapers struggle to take a balanced view of the war in Kashmir. For instance, they refer to groups active against India as jangaz militants instead of mujahideen as they are inclined to do for Muslim warriors everywhere else in the world. They do not appreciate that George W Bush shut down Pakistans jehad in Kashmir and without the war on terror the violence against India would be at a much higher level. India and Pakistan are indebted to Bush for twisting the arms of the Pakistan army into reversing a policy that was harming both countries, but Muslims insist on seeing the war in civilisational terms even if it benefits them. John Kerry is much less enthusiastic about deploying American troops to Muslim countries and in the event of his taking power, it is certain that US interest in Pakistan will reduce, which in turn will result in a ratcheting up of the Kashmir jehad. Indians should also hope that Bush stays in power because John Kerry has a strong support base in trade unions and has threatened to make outsourcing of work to India difficult for American companies. Bush on the other hand supports outsourcing, believing it makes US companies profitable and the economy healthier. Indians should thus be rooting for Bush. However, such pragmatic thought is not possible in our emotionally charged society and both the left-liberal section and the Muslims in general profess hatred for Americas policies and hope Bush loses. This year, in Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai and Delhi alone, a quarter of a million jobs will come directly from America. These will go mainly to middle class Hindu youth who speak English and whose cultural aspirations are to a large extent conditioned by America. This increasingly large group will also favour deepening Indian ties to the US. There will be a small number of Muslim youth who will get these jobs, but the illiteracy of the community and the bias against Muslims will ensure that this proportion is far lower than it should be. Companies placing advertisements for recruitment with English newspapers regularly insist that these are not published in Urdu papers. This is compounded by the fact that Muslims generally prefer small businesses to employment. Former police chiefs Satish Sahney and O P Bali tried to correct the bias of the police force by encouraging Muslims to join. They failed because Muslims were reluctant to take up the jobs. Muslim role models There are two outstanding Muslims in India whom the community should emulate. However, they are ignored. The careers and success of Azim Premji (who says he is Indian first and everything else including Bangalorean and Muslim later) and A P J Abdul Kalam (who prefers Hindu spiritual literature and music) would do any community proud. Amongst Muslims they are not heroes because they have de-Islamised themselves. Even Dr Zakaria puts his elbow into the two, writing on various occasions that they go out of their way not be seen as Muslims. Even if it is true, why is it such a bad thing? Muslims have an awesome figure for emulation in Allama Iqbal, scholar of Persian, writer of Urdu poetry, translator of Sanskrit and expert at German and English. Iqbal wrote of breaking out of Islams traditions by modernising religious thought. He noted that Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) had ossified over a thousand years and the practice of the faith according to jurisprudence was being mistaken for the faith itself. He offered tools for breaking out of this including consensus (ijma) and striving (ijtihad). The question Iqbal did not answer was: whose consensus? The ulemas or the elected representatives? Iqbal is lionised in Pakistan (where his birthday spawns more newspaper supplements than Jinnahs) and by Indias Muslim elite. He is loved not for his progressive views but his parochial poems, especially Shikwa (Complaint) in which a believer remonstrates with god for abandoning Muslims. One of Urdus greatest poems and stirring to hear even for non-Muslims, Shikwa celebrates the Muslim ideal of the man-on-horseback who conquered the infidels for god and got nothing in return. Few have read Iqbals lectures on the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam because they are so impenetrable and intellectual. If they read him, Muslims would be uncomfortable with his radical views. Zakarias solutions Dr Zakaria believes that Muslims must take the initiative in mending relations with Hindus. They must develop more and more contacts on a personal level with Hindus and remove their prejudices and misinterpretations about Islam to preserve the multi-religious character of our country, Indian Muslims must participate in Hindu festivals and invite Hindus to participate in Muslim festivals. They must generate such goodwill all around that the differences between us and them disappear. Dr Zakaria recognises that secular Muslims are always apologetic about their stand that the future lies not in confronting Hindus but in reforms in accordance with the times. He notes that the Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, act boldly and aggressively. Dr Zakaria does not say it but this is because the fundamentalists find more resonance in the community than the secularists, who are rejected as preaching heresy. Dr Zakaria also believes that till a reconciliation happens with Pakistan, specifically a reunion of the two countries but with sovereignty vested in both along the EU model, this Hindu-Muslim problem will remain. In short, that Partition is the problem and undoing it is the solution. But is that wholly true? Hindu distaste of Muslims is based only partly on the fact of Partition. Largely, it is the bias inherent in the Hindu faith that rejects those without caste. Fifty-four years of a Constitution that decapitates doctrinal Hinduism and instils a sense of egalitarianism into it has not yet permeated among Hindus for whom caste, though its practice is illegal, is still the currency of identity. While a joining of hands with Hindus socially will ensure goodwill especially with the fanatics of RSS persuasion in urban India, the average Hindu will remain distant because his religion does not equip him for meaningful interaction with the untouchable. Islam and modernity Islam cannot be modernised as a way of life that is an alternative to secular democracy. The great Jamaat-e-Islami leader Maulana Maudoodi invented this alternative at the same time as Arab ideologues Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. However states that have been raised on Islamic constitutions have collapsed or floundered because Islam is not equipped to manage a modern state socially or economically or in terms of governance. The only solution for Muslims wishing to modernise is to dissociate faith from polity. That means secular law and that means a rejection of Shariah. This will be impossible for Muslims to accept voluntarily except at the point of a gun, as in Turkey, or through legislative imposition, as in a secular democracy where the majority is not inclined towards Shariah, as in India. Muslims can forge ahead towards modernity through reform that is imposed by the state, perhaps even leaving behind Hindus. Just as the agnostics Nehru and Ambedkar dragged an unwilling, upper-caste Congress into reforming Hindu law, so too must parliament reform, even by force, Muslim law. Just as most Hindus do not appreciate the meaning of the Indian constitution, which bans the practice of doctrinal Hinduism, most Muslims will not appreciate, much less understand, the need for reform that takes them away from their interpretation of religion. To them, it must be explained that the legitimacy of their beloved Iqbals ijma is for the consensus of the elected representative and not the scholar of god. Indian Muslims: Where have they gone wrong by Dr Rafiq Zakaria is published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Priced at Rs 495, the 565-page will be released this week. JAI SECULARISM!
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 5 2004, 10:23 AM
Hindu Soldiers will not be tying Rakhi so that the SENTIMENTS of this swines are not Hurt ... JAI SECUALRISM JAI SECULAR INDIAN ARMY! http://www.milligazette.com/IndMusStat/2004a/034-aimmm-4sep04.htm ALL INDIA MUSLIM MAJLIS-e-MUSHAWARAT AIMMM Condemns Indefencible Act of Terrorism by Chechen Militants But Supports Chechens Centuries-old Freedom Struggle Holds PUTIN Responsible for War in Chechenya New Delhi, 4 September, 2004: Shri Syed Shahabuddin, President of the All India Muslim Majlis- e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), has issued the following Statement : "The All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat is shocked by the horrifying sequence of events in Beslan in North Ossetia, Russia, which has caused the death of hundreds of innocent children and other civilians. Islamic law absolutely prohibits the holding to ransom and killing of innocent non-combatants, particularly old men, women and children. In the eyes of the International Law such acts constitute War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The AIMMM, therefore, deplores and condemns, without any reservation, such indefencible acts of terrorism by the Chechen militants, which target the Russian people and which lose the Chechen Freedom Movement the support and sympathy of friendly peoples all over the world. However, the AIMMM takes this opportunity to reiterate its moral support to Chechenya centuries-old struggle for liberation from Russia and condemns the deliberate and politically motivated violation by President Putin of the Russia-Chechenya Agreement of 1994 and his relaunch of the war of conquest in 1999 with unprecedented brutality and massive violation of human rights, punctuated by bogus elections to impose Russian stooges and crush the will of the Chechen people." Sd/- Syed Shahabuddin ALL INDIA MUSLIM MAJLIS-e-MUSHAWARAT N-44, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi - 110 025 Phone: 2632 6780 Fax: 2632 7346 Email: muslim@del3.vsnl.net.in q
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 5 2004, 10:37 AM
http://203.200.89.17/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd3%2Etxt&counter_img=3 Muslim backwardness and modern education Prafull Goradia The issue of backwardness of Muslims and the question of reservation in Government jobs, whether it should be five or three per cent, have not been considered in depth. Without understanding the reasons for the backwardness of a community, whose elite ruled large tracts of India for five centuries, it is unlikely that the problem would get ameliorated, not to speak of it being solved. To gain an insight into why the community is educationally not comparable to the Christians and the Hindus, it should be useful to appreciate, or rather denounce, the attitude of the ulema. The alims in India have been consistent that the Muslims should avoid the study of English and the pursuit of western education. This was their response ever since the introduction of English medium schools at the turn of the 18th century. Jonathan Duncan founded the Sanskrit College in 1792. In a few years thereafter Mr Sherboume founded a school in his own name at Jorasanko near Tagore Palace. The poet laureate's grandfather Prince Dwarkanath Tagore studied here. Again a Scotsman named Drummond founded a school at Dharamtolla; here schooled Vivian Derozio of the Young Bengal Movement in the early years of the 19th century. Jagmohan Bosu founded at Bhowanipore a free English school around 1800. The Hindu College, later renamed Presidency College, began teaching as early as 1817. Nevertheless, none of these institutions attracted the Muslim youth. Little wonder that in the course of time very few of them found gazetted jobs. Until about 1780 the Musalmans had monopolised all the important positions of State, reported Sir William Hunter in his book The Indian Musalman. Sir Hunter published a table showing the distribution of senior officers in the Bengal of 1871. Of all the gazetted jobs, 1338 were held by Europeans, 681 by Hindus and Musalmans had only 92 positions. Of these, 67 were either deputy collectors or munsifs. There was hardly any engineer or accountant. The situation was not incidental. It was the result of a virtual campaign against English education. As Aziz Ahmad, in his book on Islamic culture, last published by OUP in 2000, has stated that western education maladjusted to the basic values of Islam and has threatened to produce an intellectually uprooted generation. This is in consistent with the Islamic tradition of taqlid, which means a blind and unquestioning obedience. In today's language it would be called fundamentalism. The opposite of taqlid is ijtehad, which means reinterpretation and implies reform. Ijtehad was banned in 700 Hijri or a little over 700 years ago. Its prohibition coincided with the end of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs based in Baghdad. The transfer of the Caliphate to Cairo spelt doom for reforms in Islam. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan was the first Muslim in India to awaken his fellow religionists to their neglect of western education and their resulting backwardness. He moved heaven and earth to get the Muslim youth learn English. He founded the Anglo Mohammadan College which later became the Aligarh Muslim University. Not all his missionary zeal could be sufficient to combat the trend set by the alims of India. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, too, was aware of the backwardness of his community. According to his brother Ahmed Ali (as told to Dharamdas Vora, this author's grandfather, in 1946), the Qaid was not unduly worried about the disadvantage of the Muslims due to the Hindu majority. He was more concerned about the inability of the Muslims to keep pace with the Christians and Hindus, whether in the professions they pursued or in jobs, government or private. He realised that the lack of appropriate education was their Achilles heel. He had little sympathy for the ulema, but there was no way he could induce the Muslims to catch up with time. The result was the demand for Pakistan and the simultaneous insistence for an exchange of population. Significantly, he wanted not only Hindus but also Christians to migrate to Hindustan and all the Muslims to transfer to Pakistan. The Dawn in 1946 and 47 made repeated mention of the Muslim League's anxiety for a transfer of population. For example, the paper on November 26, 1946, quoted Jinnah as saying: "I am of the opinion that the authorities, both Central and Provincial, should take up immediately the question of exchange of population." It would be wrong to assume that the alims are prisoners of what was decided 700 years ago. They are aware that Christianity underwent its first reform in the 16th century when Martin Luther and John Calvin began their dissidence from the Vatican and others, including King Henry VIII of England, carried it forward. It eventually resulted in the disintegration of the faith into dozens of denominations. The ulema do not wish to risk the possibility of anything like the scattering of Islam as happened to Christianity. Because education leads to questioning which, in turn, leads to dissent.
Posted by: Pathmarajah Sep 6 2004, 12:29 AM
Folks, We already know America's response to terrorism - a full security state, plus war on Afghanistan, Iraq and al Queda. They have an entire manual of how to fight terrorism and islamism and bring about its reformation. Now we have Putin's policy and advice for India too. "We showed weakness, and weak people are beaten," Mr. Putin said. "We simply cannot, should not, live as carelessly as before. We need to create a much more efficient security system requiring actions from our security forces that rise to the challenges they face." Associated Press These responses itself are the required reformation - reformation of the non islamists weak mindedness first. Regards. Pathma
Posted by: Mudy Sep 6 2004, 09:41 AM
Pathmarajah , In India Islamist or there avatar in power now, previous leaders were weak. In India we are seeing next round of Islamist and Gora invasion at same time.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 6 2004, 11:10 AM
How Mosque all over world communicate with each other? Do they have some circular type of thing? Do Mosque follow instructions given by other Mosque Imam? Do they have any central figure for communication purpose all over world?
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 6 2004, 12:56 PM
>How Mosque all over world communicate with each other? If Islamic Terrorists can use sat-phones/laptops , well they do use tech for their Mohammadian ways. Friday namaz is the last mile solution. Lead managers of their terror ventures are rally from caves, the are all MBA/X-Army/Engineers/Accountants ..
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 6 2004, 12:58 PM
pardon my zillion spello and symantical errors..
Posted by: Sattva Sep 6 2004, 04:48 PM
QUOTE
How Mosque all over world communicate with each other? Do they have some circular type of thing? Do Mosque follow instructions given by other Mosque Imam? Do they have any central figure for communication purpose all over world?
Main method of communication is the "Holy" Koran. Of course, Mullahs have their conferences where they can discuss strategy, which they in turn will feed to worshippers on Fridays.
Posted by: David Sep 7 2004, 01:33 AM
The Venom Of Terror Islamic fundamentalism is fast spreading its tentacles across the subcontinent http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040913&fname=Column+Prem+%28F%29&sid=1 When 13 grenades were thrown at an Awami League rally in Dhaka on August 21, killing 20 persons, injuring up to 300 and coming within a whisker of wiping out the entire top leadership of the Awami League, our first reaction was to breathe a sigh of relief that it happened somewhere else. Eight months earlier, when Gen Musharraf escaped two successive attempts on his life within a week, we experienced the same secret relief. Such things didn't happen in India, we said to ourselves. They were fruits of the ambivalence the two governments had displayed towards terrorism in the past. Some even went so far as to say that having made their bed, it would serve Pakistan and Bangladesh right if they had to sleep in it. Such complacency is utterly unwarranted. What nearly happened in Bangladesh and Pakistan has already happened here: thirteen years ago we lost a much loved former prime minister to a suicide bomber. And lest public memory be short, only last year a terrorist cell in Maharashtra committed no fewer than five major acts of terror that took more than a hundred lives before it was finally broken. The truth is that South Asia is not immune from the special brand of terrorism spreading across a large part of the globe. A new breed of intolerance feeds it. And it is thriving on the abundant supply of the most lethal small arms that the world has ever known. Its epicentre—an austere religious establishment in Saudi Arabia which feeds large sums of money into madrassas that propagate its form of Islam. A handful of these have become breeding grounds for terrorism. But in the final analysis, this new brand of terrorism has been able to make inroads into all three countries mainly because of indecision among political leaders over whether to ride the tiger of religious intolerance or confront it. Pakistan is the most obvious example. During the Afghan war it played host to the Arab mujahideen who later became the backbone of Al Qaeda. After the war, it inducted some of them into terrorist operations in Kashmir. This served as a green signal to other Islamic fundamentalist organisations, notably the LeT, to recruit and collect funds at will so long as they send some cadres to do the government's bidding in Kashmir. The Faustian pact turned Pakistan into an epicentre of global terrorism in the '90s. Worse still, by serving a national purpose in Kashmir and Afghanistan, the Afghan mujahideen built solid bases within Pakistan's security establishment. It is this connection that enabled LeT, Jaish and other terrorist groups belonging to the notorious Brigade 313 to make a bid on Musharraf's life. The attack on the Awami League shows that a combination of political expediency and religious ambivalence may be taking Bangladesh down the same road. The ruling Bangladesh National Party (BNP) made what would otherwise have been a sagacious political move when it decided to fight the 2001 elections in tandem with the Jamaat-e-Islami. This was because the Jamaat was stronger in the western fringes of the country where the BNP was the weakest. But the Jamaat is no ordinary party. It had for years been trying to propagate an intolerant arabicised brand of Islam that was alien to Bangladesh's secular culture. This alliance therefore forced the BNP to give ground on crucial issues like banning Ahmadiya texts and introducing a law against blasphemy—Pakistan style. mad.gif These compromises made by its leaders (a large number of whom fought against precisely the kind of cultural colonialism that the Jamaat espouses, 33 years ago) have inflamed a violent fringe both outside and at the edges of the Jamaat itself. The BNP too is learning, therefore—as the Pakistani establishment has done—that there is no half-way house in accommodating fanaticism.Its leaders may well be right when they claim that by bringing the Jamaat into the government they have brought it into civil society.But the compromise has empowered a violent intolerant fringe that now threatens the very existence of democracy and civil society in Bangladesh. What is worse, it has given this fringe just enough legitimacy in the eyes of the security forces to paralyse them and abort the rule of law. That may be one reason why although twelve days have passed since the bombing, the police and intelligence agencies have not arrested a single person in connection with it. India has no record of ambivalence towards Islamic—or to be precise self-proclaimed Islamic—terrorism. But over the past six years, the bjp too established a not-too-creditable record of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Throughout that period, A.B. Vajpayee left no one in doubt that he sternly disapproved of any manifestation of Hindu exclusivism and prejudice. Advani frequently gave him valuable support—so much so that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad labelled both of them as pseudo-secular. But when the party had to choose between defending the secularism of the Constitution by cracking down on the lunatic fringe of the Sangh parivar and looking the other way, it chose the latter. Gujarat was of course the most blatant example and fittingly cost the NDA its hold on power. The near-catastrophe in Bangladesh should serve as a salutary warning to all three countries. There can be no compromise with absolutism in any form. We therefore need to work together to prevent it from taking root in the South Asian soil. This requires profound changes in all countries both on domestic issues and towards each other.
Posted by: Viren Sep 7 2004, 07:23 PM
Cover story in this week's Time: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040913/story.html http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040913/wnomani.html
Posted by: shiv Sep 11 2004, 09:33 AM
I got interested in the concept of Islamism thanks to the threads Kaushal started on BR. But it strikes me that Indians know nothing about Islamism. Maybe that is the correct attitude - because Islamism is true Islam so why bring in some artificial differentiating point? But I think Indians get no points for understanding this - because we are afraid of Islam. Islam and muslims terrify hindus and many of us loathe it like terrrified slaves. It surely must be dhimmitude that keeps Indians from ripping apart Islamic structures and society and realising that there is a gret deal of pretence and sham unity and sham power. The West - is "advanced" precisely because they were able to see though many things including Islam/Islamism. But I think Indians constantly talk about why Islamism is winning, how it is implementing great conspiracies and how its followers are really united and how its rules are followed to the last word with rigid acceptance. Indian are constantly atributing Islam with such great powers and arguing with each other about how "reform is not possible" - the Koran says blah blah blah. Seeing this I am reminded of slaves in conversation. One suggests a way of changing their master's terrible habits and theother says "Shh - it can never happen Master's code is too powerful" We worship Islam and the Koran in our hatred. Islam is truly great to have coined a word specifically for us - "Dhimmitude" Isn't it obvious that if Islam is unchangeable, and Muslims are rigid and out to conquer the world and their code and unity is as strong as we believe it to be - the only way out is submit ourselves or fight. Nobody wants to say "Let us kill our cruel master, for he will never change" We beat about the bush and praise ourselves for not harming even a cockroach. Islam and the Koran do not have the powers that we worshipful hindus attribute to it. If you show force the Islamist buckles and bends just like the worshipful hindu. Anybody can change - it needs a degree of unity and confidence in one's own culture and background, and a realization that we need not worship and perpetuate the myth of "immutable" dictates and the vise like grip those mad dictates have on followers whom we will neither be able to change nor willing to kill. But all we do is fear Islam and Islamism for the power that we give it. Reading what some people say - I feel "Wow - this Allah bloke must be a great guy - to have such a grip on his followers and leave hindus so much in awe of his ability."
Posted by: Sattva Sep 11 2004, 09:42 AM
QUOTE
ndian are constantly atributing Islam with such great powers and arguing with each other about how "reform is not possible" - the Koran says blah blah blah. Seeing this I am reminded of slaves in conversation. One suggests a way of changing their master's terrible habits and theother says "Shh - it can never happen Master's code is too powerful" We worship Islam and the Koran in our hatred. Islam is truly great to have coined a word specifically for us - "Dhimmitude" Isn't it obvious that if Islam is unchangeable, and Muslims are rigid and out to conquer the world and their code and unity is as strong as we believe it to be - the only way out is submit ourselves or fight
So studying the Koran and coming to the conclusion that Islam is unreformable is a "slave like attitude"? where do you get this nonsense? and yes, the Hindus need to fight the Muslims, because the Koran demands world conquest by Muslims. And I dont have a slave mentality, because I know that the Hindus will emerge victorious. Why would I fear an asuric cult like Islam? THe Asura always loses. You seem like the type who is desperate to avoid the idea of an all out war with the Muslims. You talk about a 'degree of unity and confidence" but that alone - while necessary - will not do unless the Hindus take direct actions against Muslims.
Posted by: Sattva Sep 11 2004, 09:43 AM
and yes, Islamism = Islam a lot of people want to imagine that Islam is different from Islamism. Ive never seen such mental cowardice.
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 11 2004, 11:04 AM
ROTFL.gif ROTFL.gif ROTFL.gif Shiv, Now that has to count as the most ingenious spin of the year.. Let me try to another track.. Indians ( lets drop the niceties just refer to hindus ) remind us of slaves who after having been raped get furious and rip the used condom apart claiming "No master it cant be you its the evil condom that screwed us and there, we punished it".. Howz that ? Like it ? tongue.gif tv_feliz.gif
Posted by: Pathmarajah Sep 11 2004, 11:36 AM
shiv says, Islam and the Koran do not have the powers that we worshipful hindus attribute to it. If you show force the Islamist buckles and bends just like the worshipful hindu. Anybody can change - Exactly. Muslims are the most inept fighters/armies in the world, not having won a single war since about 1650. We all know that terrorism has not ever achieved its military or political objectives, except perhaps the LTTE in a small way, and yet these inept naivetes employ this failed strategy again today. This last century has seen nothing from muslims except oil and terrorism, and cry babies bawling for their own homelands. (last resort is to bawl, Loud). Afghan Pathans surrendered in less than 3 days. They fight, betray kill and enslave/colonise their own kind...the list goes embarassingly on. Hindus simply should be presented these truths. But there are signs that they are a-changing. I see muslims en bloc becoming Hindus in parts of Indonesia the coming decades, others becoming neo-muslims - a sort of Protestant Muslims shorn of the sharia and several sections of the koran itself. After seeing Afghanistan and Musharraf, I dont think it will take too long. Sorry, but these people sway with the wind and tides. Here in my country, Malay or Melayu means swayers, which I have witnessed over 40 years, and such passed as refocusing. Regards. Pathma
Posted by: Krishna Sep 11 2004, 12:46 PM
Shiv, Charity begins at home. Now about the subject, if I say ok, I'm on your side.....what solution are you offering me?? We all know what the problem is, there is no argument there. Some would agree openly, some would say, " yeah...but......ooh na na........la la........" but that's not the idea. The idea should be to troubleshoot the problem n' not just analyze and analyze and analyze...........u get the drift?? For ex: When a patient comes to a Doc with a problem the doc does some analysis (symptoms patient has,) checks, x-rays and what not........then he goes on to treat the patient.......and not just analyze again n' again every week.
Posted by: Bhootnath Sep 12 2004, 05:40 AM
Shiv is fast *gliding* upto the level of " J N Iyer " who used to publish on Sluekha. , ppl who visit Sulekha might know what I am talking abt. smile.gif Shiv is trying to impose his Dhimmi notions on everybody here. Array Shiv who is "WE" ... talk abt yourself smile.gif
Posted by: k.ram Sep 12 2004, 01:26 PM
Destroy countries inciting jihad: Naipaul http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200409121211.htm London, Sept 12. (PTI): Raking up a controversy, Nobel prize winning author Sir Vidia Naipaul has said countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran which foment religious war must be destroyed. The 72-year-old India-born author, in an interview published in 'The Observer' today, however had a word of advise to the people: "hate oppression, but fear the oppressed." Naipaul said the thing he saw in the current terrorism was the exulting in other people's death. "We are told the people who killed the children in Russia were smiling. The liberal voices were ready to explain the reasons for their actions. But this has no good side. It is as bad as it appears," he said. Asked about a proper response of the West, Naipaul said: "Well, clearly Iraq is not the place to have gone. But religious war is so threatening to the rest of us that it cannot be avoided. "It will have to be fought... there are certain countries which foment it, and they probably should be destroyed, actually." What about Saudi Arabia? Naipaul said: "I would like to think so, yes", adding that "I think Iran has to be dealt with, too." Naipaul believes that the world is yet to confront the implications of the rise of Islamic states. "The blowing up of the twin towers; people could deal with it as an act of terror, but the idea of religious war is too frightening for people to manage. The word used is jihad. We like to translate it as holy war, but really it is religious war," he said.
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 12 2004, 02:30 PM
From Sulekha newshopper .. http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=403039
QUOTE
Moderate Muslims need to raise their voices By Javeed Akhter, physician and executive director of the International Strategy and Policy Institute Published September 12, 2004 I have always considered myself fortunate. I feel lucky in being born into Islam, a belief system that I love passionately. I am proud of its rational concepts, its moderate teachings, its egalitarianism, its pluralism and in particular the tenet that there should be no intermediaries between man and God. I also am continually grateful for U.S. citizenship. The decision to migrate had not been easy, and I had vacillated for a long time. But any doubts about migrating vanished the moment I set foot on the U.S. soil. My new country of choice appeared to be a modern-day miracle. Daily life functioned effortlessly. Class distinction was minimal. People were friendly yet minded their own business. Work ethic was great, and institutions like hospitals were run professionally. As a physician I was impressed by the dignity and compassion with which patients were treated. Bribery in daily chores, except for driver's licenses, was virtually non-existent. Streets were clean, and the toilets cleaner. Freedom of expression was taken for granted. There was a healthy irreverence toward authority. No subject was too sacrosanct. There were no sacred cows, neither figurative nor literal. I loved the freedoms this country offered more than its luxuries. The ideals that Islam stood for, such as egalitarianism, compassion and honesty, appeared to be more evident in U.S. society than in most Muslim-majority countries. There was no fear of unexpected searches or arrests, no flash riots, as happen in India, which would imperil one's life and property. The country felt safe and secure, and daily life was free of all of the usual annoyances and tensions that I had become used to in India. Soon I discovered the Muslim scene was more productive in the U.S. than anywhere else in Islamic world. Here the scholars were more creative. Many important scholars of contemporary Islam and Muslims such as Hossein Nasr, Cherif Bassiouni and Ali Mazrui were in the U.S. Who are these ? Can we get some ideas on what these people think/write ? Islamicists such as John Esposito, John Voll, John Woods and Ralph Braibanti wrote about Islam and Muslims with empathy and sensitivity. Books written in the English language were quickly becoming important new additions to the Islamic literature. In fact there was such strength and exuberance that people talked about the much-awaited Islamic renaissance starting in the U.S. The commonly touted rationale was that only in the West could Muslim scholars express their opinion freely without being ostracized or sometimes even branded an infidel. Like any other immigrant group, Muslims and South Asians were stereotyped, but this problem of stereotyping and otherness rarely intruded in my daily life. The color of my skin, my facial features, dietary restrictions, religious rituals and my worldview all set me apart from my fellow Americans. Nevertheless like most of my Muslim immigrant friends, I always felt warmly received by my colleagues, patients and other Americans. My children were thriving in schools, and the universal hope of a better future for our children appeared to be coming true. This remarkably munificent state of affairs changed abruptly on Sept. 11, 2001. My work remains as fulfilling as ever. The little cocoon I live in has more creature comforts than ever before. The stand-up comics are funnier than ever. But the outside has fallen apart. War and the violent actions of small groups of Muslims driven by anger and revenge dominate the news. The attempts by some Muslim militants to justify their actions as sanctioned by Islam are meaningless to me, but they feed into the stereotype of fanatical Muslims who are the followers of violent religion. Violence against Muslims in many parts of the world, ranging from southern Thailand to Chechnya, continues unabated. In the U.S. the stereotyping and hate speech by some news and views shows, political pundits and a few religious leaders have become so strident and pervasive that I can barely look at a newspaper or news channel or listen to radio. All of a sudden the American media appear flooded with people with provincial and parochial outlooks. My initial read of America as a broad-minded nation now appears naive. I have come to the slow realization that my privileged position in my profession may be akin to the honorary white status of South Asian Indians in the apartheid South Africa. The guy cant stay away from taking a swipe at India The new authority given to law enforcement under the Patriot Act has resulted in violations of civil rights, mostly of Muslims, on a large scale. Indictments brought under the law have led to few prosecutions but a lot of heartache and serious disruption of innocent lives. This hasn't tempered the Justice Department's zeal to prosecute these cases of alleged terrorism. A new round of questioning Muslims and Arabs is under way, with unannounced, intrusive and intimidating visits to homes and offices by the FBI. The very freedoms and security that I cherished as an immigrant have evaporated. The law-enforcement sweeps have had a chilling effect on the Muslim community. People are afraid to talk freely. They wonder whether there are informants among them. They do not know which act or what word they utter may be misconstrued and prompt a visit from the authorities or worse. In the current climate in Washington, the world is looked at as black and white. There are no shades of gray, no room for introspection and no middle ground. And yet it is this middle ground, these shades of gray that we need to reclaim. There is an alternate way of dealing with the problems we are all faced with. This demands a fresh analysis of the problems facing our country with input from Muslims who care for both the U.S. and Islam. Muslims here want the U.S. to be the best nation in the world, not just the one with the richest economy and the strongest defense force, but also the nation with high ideals upholding justice, fair play, civil and human rights. They also want Islam to get the recognition and respect it deserves as one of the greatest living traditions in human history. This crucial input from American Muslims is missing from most public policy debates. Two influential reports published recently are a good illustration of this point. Both the analysis published by the Rand Corp. titled "Civil and Democratic Islam" and the 9/11 Commission report fail to include a Muslim perspective. The Rand Corp.'s solution of influencing the struggle within Islam is to stratify Muslims into various categories by their attitudes toward such disparate issues as democracy and wife beating, and based on this stratification support the groups that are deemed more acceptable against those that are perceived as potential troublemakers. The 9/11 report, a thorough and painstaking crime scene investigation, barely flirts with the issue of the root causes of violence. It has no input from any Muslim scholars. Both reports assume that the problem of violence is entirely with the Muslims and Islam. There is no attempt at introspection. The oppression of Muslims by the West, whether real or perceived, is not addressed at all. The possible reasons why the current U.S. administration has become the most distrusted and feared in the Muslim world are ignored. A Muslim-American perspective is missing also from the op-ed pages of most newspapers, discussion circles on TV and policy-making bodies of both the legislative and executive branches of the government. The greatest and the most conspicuous absence is from the law-enforcement agencies. In these areas the U.S. may learn from the newly elected government in India that is aggressively pursuing a policy of inclusiveness. ohmy.gif Any attempt at regaining middle ground has to start with debating what is prominent on the U.S. radar as well as the Muslim radar. It is only by initiating an honest discussion that we can start reclaiming the middle ground, recapture some of the sense of security that we have lost, salvage some of the freedoms, and come up with a set of solutions that may bring peace to the world. Otherwise the spiral of violence will predictably continue with an ever-increasing intensity, and peace-loving folks like me will continue to wake up each morning and ask, "When will it end?"
Some taquiyah, and some more and some more.. The usual peace-loving stuff followed by the "root cause" line (sounds familiar ?) but he never wonders for once why ? Is there even a slightest possibility to recognise that the faithful might, just might not be reciprocating the "policy of inclusiveness" ???
Posted by: Viren Sep 13 2004, 08:09 AM
THE ASIAN AGE Look Beyond the Camel - By Dr Rafiq Zakaria
QUOTE
In a thought-provoking article in the Indian Express, Sagarika Ghose has shown how the emerging market-led democratisation has started demolishing the walls of prejudice against Indian Muslims; in her characteristically literary style she writes, "Demagogues whip up ancient hatreds and spur on their ignorant armies to kill and rape. Petty manifestos screech 'enemies', 'anti-nationals', 'traitors'. But the whirlwind can no longer be stopped, it comes ever on, it bounds over the spindly wickets of prejudice and soars upwards to the sky. To the sky where a certain tricolour flutters. A tricolour that, 50 years ago, committed itself to the poorest voter and to the most destitute child and promised them the arrival of this whirlwind. Behold the icons of a new India: Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Kaif, Aamir Khan, Tabu, Azeem Premji, A.R. Rehman." Nevertheless, despite the whirlwind of which Sagarika Ghose has so feelingly spoken, the prejudice against Indian Muslims in large sections of Hindus still persists: the common Muslims are its worst sufferers. And what is most disheartening is that more and more Hindus seem to be averse to the promotion of any reconciliation with Muslims much less in the furtherance of Hindu-Muslim unity. The hardliners among them have succeeded in painting a picture of an Indian Muslim which alienates him from a common Hindu; it evokes wrong reaction in him. He looks at a bearded Muslim wearing a cap on his head and a Muslim woman, with a veil on her face and a long robe from top to bottom and feels that he or she is so different from him. Appearances are no less vital for affiliation. Then there is the religious connection that is wrongly attributed between the so-called jihadis and Indian Muslims. This has created the most unfortunate psychological barrier. These terrorists not only bring shame and disgrace to Islam but cause the greatest harm to Indian Muslims, who are suspected by a number of Hindus being aligned with these terrorists or being sympathetic to their acts of terror... Indian Muslims must readjust themselves to changing circumstances; they had done it successfully at the initiative of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan on the eve of the British Raj; they accepted the replacement of the Quranic punishments with those provided by the new rulers in their civil and criminal codes that were imposed on them; they paid interest on loans taken from the banks though it was prohibited by the Quran; they acquiesced in the banning of stoning to death for adulterers, though it violated the Quranic injunction; they strongly protested against the enactment of the Shariah Act, which invalidated child marriages - its biggest defender was Jinnah. In many other respects also they accepted the new legislations though many of these were not strictly in accordance with the provisions in the Quran. So much so that the British Raj was, by and large, hailed by most of their leaders. There is no reason why Indian Muslims should not follow the direction as shown to them by Sir Syed; he was, of course, condemned by the ulema and even denounced as a heretic but the community on the whole accepted his leadership and took to the new pattern of life, turning in a new leaf especially by taking enthusiastically to English and other modern subjects of education and by agreeing to move forward by shedding the old shibboleths. Some serious thought in the same way has to be given by the community to come out of the rot into which it has fallen; even Allama Iqbal had suggested in his memorable Madras lecture that "the claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems." I fail, therefore, to understand why Indian Muslims are now making such a hue and cry about carrying out certain necessary reforms in their Personal Law, when several Muslim countries have already enacted them. The shameful manner in which the Muslim leadership handled the Shah Bano case brought nothing but disgrace to the community, the new law of maintenance that it got enacted has thrown many Muslim women divorcee to the streets. Triple talaq has been condemned by theulema, but such is their aversion to reforms that they have refused to disown and discard it... Furthermore these dignitaries live in a different world which has lost its relevance now. Akbar Allahabadi has rightly mocked at them: The Shaikh has advised his followers Why should they travel by train when camel is available? Indian Muslims must realise that these old-fashioned venerable men cannot see beyond the camel; the technical revolution has escaped them. Therefore Indian Muslims must shut them out of their lives if they are to have meaningful existence. I am particularly distressed by the miserable condition of the Muslim youth; they have become rudderless; they have lost hope about any prospect in this country. They need to be galvanised; they must get themselves educated at every level and be provided with every facility to acquire professional and technical knowledge so that they are fully equipped to compete and shine in whatever field they specialise in. Their parents must give up their traditional outlook of sticking to the worn-out methods and norms and not keep their children away from all forms of modern education. There is no jihad better than this; it must be fought by them resolutely so that they can overcome the hurdles and difficulties that they may face. To succeed they have to exert themselves to their utmost capacity and bring out the best in them by utilising their talents to the fill.They should not waste their time and energy in indulging in accusations against others; these only provoke more ill-will and give no relief nor justice. Their leaders have tried this game ever since Partition and, as I have pointed out, brought nothing but disaster for the community. The bitter past is over, it is the emerging present with its wonderful opportunities that will take themforward. In the words of the indomitable Winston Churchill: "The stern compression of circumstances, the twinges of adversity, the spur of slights and taunts in early years, are needed to evoke that ruthless fixity of purpose and tenacious mother wit without which great actions are seldom accomplished." I have always believed that standing on one's feet is the only solution for the ills of Indian Muslims. Doles and reservations will only keep them backward. They must harness their own energy and try and prove to be better than others in every sector. Also, they should work for cooperation and not confrontation. I have, therefore, continued to insist that they must pursue the path of reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims; after the genocide in Gujarat it has become most difficult. But whatever the odds, placed as Muslims are in India, it is the only way to ensure their security and even prosperity. Hindu-Muslim unity can alone bring them a safe haven in this country. Hindus must realise that it is in the interest of all that 150 million of their co-citizens are brought outof the slough of despondency and given equal opportunity to grow and develop. They must take Indian Muslims as their partners and encourage them to come up in life. Prejudices and suspicions are counterproductive; nor does hatred advance a nation; it has already done much damage to the polity. The two communities are so linked that each has to help the other; camaraderie among them is essential for both development and integration. Each has to help the other to make the country strong and prosperous.
Posted by: Viren Sep 13 2004, 08:13 AM
New York Times, September 7, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html By DAVID BROOKS
QUOTE
We've been forced to witness the massacre of innocents. In New York, Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Baghdad and Bali, we have seen thousands of people destroyed while going about the daily activities of life. We've been forced to endure the massacre of children. Whether it's teenagers outside an Israeli disco or students in Beslan, Russia, we've seen kids singled out as special targets. We should by now have become used to the death cult that is thriving at the fringes of the Muslim world. This is the cult of people who are proud to declare, "You love life, but we love death." This is the cult that sent waves of defenseless children to be mowed down on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war, that trains kindergartners to become bombs, that fetishizes death, that sends people off joyfully to commit mass murder. This cult attaches itself to a political cause but parasitically strangles it. The death cult has strangled the dream of a Palestinian state. The suicide bombers have not brought peace to Palestine; they've brought reprisals. The car bombers are not pushing the U.S. out of Iraq; they're forcing us to stay longer. The death cult is now strangling the Chechen cause, and will bring not independence but blood. But that's the idea. Because the death cult is not really about the cause it purports to serve. It's about the sheer pleasure of killing and dying. It's about massacring people while in a state of spiritual loftiness. It's about experiencing the total freedom of barbarism - freedom even from human nature, which says, Love children, and Love life. It's about the joy of sadism and suicide. We should be used to this pathological mass movement by now. We should be able to talk about such things. Yet when you look at the Western reaction to the Beslan massacres, you see people quick to divert their attention away from the core horror of this act, as if to say: We don't want to stare into this abyss. We don't want to acknowledge those parts of human nature that were on display in Beslan. Something here, if thought about too deeply, undermines the categories we use to live our lives, undermines our faith in the essential goodness of human beings. Three years after Sept. 11, too many people have become experts at averting their eyes. If you look at the editorials and public pronouncements made in response to Beslan, you see that they glide over the perpetrators of this act and search for more conventional, more easily comprehensible targets for their rage. The Boston Globe editorial, which was typical of the American journalistic response, made two quick references to the barbarity of the terrorists, but then quickly veered off with long passages condemning Putin and various Russian policy errors. The Dutch foreign minister, Bernard Bot, speaking on behalf of the European Union, declared: "All countries in the world need to work together to prevent tragedies like this. But we also would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." It wasn't a tragedy. It was a carefully planned mass murder operation. And it wasn't Russian authorities who stuffed basketball nets with explosives and shot children in the back as they tried to run away. Whatever horrors the Russians have perpetrated upon the Chechens, whatever their ineptitude in responding to the attack, the essential nature of this act was in the act itself. It was the fact that a team of human beings could go into a school, live with hundreds of children for a few days, look them in the eyes and hear their cries, and then blow them up. Dissertations will be written about the euphemisms the media used to describe these murderers. They were called "separatists" and "hostage-takers." Three years after Sept. 11, many are still apparently unable to talk about this evil. They still try to rationalize terror. What drives the terrorists to do this? What are they trying to achieve? They're still victims of the delusion that Paul Berman diagnosed after Sept. 11: "It was the belief that, in the modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Even the unreasonable must be, in some fashion, reasonable." This death cult has no reason and is beyond negotiation. This is what makes it so frightening. This is what causes so many to engage in a sort of mental diversion. They don't want to confront this horror. So they rush off in search of more comprehensible things to hate.
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 15 2004, 02:34 PM
QUOTE
Putin’s remarks Sardar M Bashir Khan We sympathise with the near and dear ones of all those who lost their lives or got wounded in the recent Ossetia tragedy (Russia). A few days later during a protest rally while replying to a question, President Putin called Chechens bastards or used words to that effect. It is an insult to a brave Muslim state that is fighting a great power for her rights. First of all the hostage takers would have never killed the people in the school had the Russian government tactfully negotiated the matter. It is the jittery Russian troops, under unwise orders of the government, who, through a confused operation, killed their own fellow citizens. Rest is all stories being made by the Russian government to malign Muslims. Mr Putin, while calling the Chechens bastards must explain as to who are the bastards who are killing innocent Chechen people of all age groups since early 19th century? Are Russians more humans than Chechens? Russia must know that Islam is a true revealed religion. It is there not to perish but flourish. pss15762bshirak@hotmail.com
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 16 2004, 08:23 PM
QUOTE
RAPES IN BESLAN: IN MUHAMMAD’S FOOTSTEPS by Srdja Trifkovic The media in the United States have been oddly fastidious in failing to report one aspect of last week’s horror in Beslan: that several Russian girls were raped by Muslim terrorists in front of their parents and classmates. The failure to report rapes in the Russian school was at odds with the eagerness of American journalists, a decade ago, to report ad nauseam on the entirely fictitious "rape camps" supposedly run by Bosnian Serbs in which Muslim women were allegedly subjected to similar degradation. That Muslim propagandists and their Western abettors should have resorted to this particular whopper is especially galling in view of Islam’s encouragement of violence against women in general, and its explicit blessing of rape of captive non-Muslim women by Muslims in particular. The behavior of Chechen terrorists in Beslan, disgusting in every gory detail by the standards of civilized humanity, was justified by the tenets of Islam and by the personal example of the cult’s inventor, Muhammad. Having established himself as the ruler of Medina, Muhammad attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu-‘l-Mustaliq in December of A.D. 626. His followers slaughtered many Jewish tribesmen and looted thousands of their camels and sheep. They also kidnapped 500 of their women. The night after the battle Muhammad and his brigands staged an orgy of rape. As one of the brigands, Abu Sa’id Khudri, later remembered, a legal problem needed to be resolved first: In order to obtain ransom from the surviving Jews for the captive women, Muslims had pledged not to violate them: We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we wanted to get the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use the Azl [coitus interruptus]. We asked the Prophet about it and he said: "You are not under any obligation not to do it like that." Having ethnically cleansed and robbed of property all but one of three Jewish clans in Medina, in A.D. 627 Muhammad decided to deal with the last, Banu Qurayzah. He offered the men conversion as an alternative to death. Upon their unsurprising refusal, some 900—exact numbers are unknown—were decapitated, one by one, in a ditch surrounding their encampment, in front of their women and children. Muhammad’s Einsatzgruppen worked hard: Torches had to be lit so that the slaughter could be accomplished in one day. The women, thus widowed or orphaned, were raped that same night. Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier. (Such treatment of the victims had been duly sanctioned by a prophetic revelation in the Kuran.) In his early years, as a powerless and often ridiculed outsider in Mecca, Muhammad had enumerated the series of temptations which could enslave human beings: The passion for women, the desire for male children, the thirst for gold and silver, spirited horses, and the possession of cattle and land (Kuran, 3:12). Once enthroned in Medina as the head of a theocratic statelet, he wanted to possess them all. Muhammad freely admitted that two things in the world, women and perfume, attracted him—so much so that he departed from his own laws in pursuit of both. Contrary to his own regulations he had at least 15 wives (some sources claim up to 25). The youngest was Aisha, who was seven years old when Muhammad—44 years her senior—"married" her. Two years later, 53-year-old Muhammad consummated this liaison and raped the girl of nine left under his control. The sordid story of Muhammad’s "marriage" to Aisha reflected a mind-set and a lifestyle. Rape of enslaved women came naturally to Muhammad. A Christian slave woman by the name of Maryah aroused his passion for nights on end, which provoked a rebellion in his harem. Divine assistance was, in the end, needed to restore order in the household, with the Kuranic verse duly advising Muhammad not to restrain himself from "that which Allah has made lawful" (66:1–3). Even more scandalous was the case of Zeinab, the wife of Zayd, Muhammad’s adopted son. Lusting after her, Muhammad ordered Zayd to divorce her and took Zeinab as yet another wife. The deal was soon sanctioned by another revelation from Allah: "there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished what they would of them" (36:37). These examples indicate that the status of women in Islam is comparable to that of the human rights in Cuba: theoretically exalted, deplorable in practice. The sources of true Islam—the Kuran and Hadith—provide the basis for theory and subsequent Shari’a practice regarding the role of women. When a judge in Pakistan recently sentenced a young woman to death for "adultery" by stoning after she had been raped by her husband’s brother, he had merely followed the Kuranic law. The fact the woman, Zafran Bibi, was raped was of no consequence: She was still guilty of "having intercourse outside of marriage." Violence against women is also condoned, even mandated, in Islam. Allah mandates that the disobedient wives are to be beaten (4:34). As the authoritative Azhar University scholars in Cairo explain, "the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating, provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood." Physical violence against one’s wife is divinely ordained and practically advised in Islam. In Muhammad’s rendering of the story of the righteous Job, Allah ordered him to beat his wife: "Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith and break not thine oath" (38:44). Some Muslim apologists claim that the Islamic teaching and practice is in line with the findings of clinical psychology. Beating is beneficial to them, we are told, because "women’s rebelliousness (nushuz) is a medical condition" based either on her masochistic delight in being beaten and tortured or sadistic desire to hurt and dominate her husband. Either way, beating is her remedy. So the Qur’anic command: ‘banish them to their couches, and beat them’ agrees with the latest psychological findings in understanding the rebellious woman. This is one of the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, because it sums up volumes of the science of psychology about rebellious women (The Australian Minaret, Australian Federation of the Islamic Councils, November 1980, p.10). Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments (both of which he acknowledged as divine revelation). He was flawed even by his new law, of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The horror unleashed by Chechen terrorists on Russian children in Beslan, and the rape of adolescent girls in particular, is the fruit of Muhammad’s example. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is in its claim that the words and acts of Muhammad provide the universally valid standard of morality and behavior for all time. Islam, in Muhammad’s texts and its codification, discriminates against women. It is extremely offensive. Those who submit to that faith must solve the problem they set themselves. Islam further discriminates against all "unbelievers." Until the petrodollars support a Kuranic revisionism that does not, we must go for it with whips and scorpions, hammer and tongs.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsViews.htm
Posted by: Viren Sep 17 2004, 07:41 AM
Germany seeks to ban controversial Islam conference http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp? subchannel_id=52&story_id=11874&name=Germany+seeks+to+ban+controversi alIslam+conference 15 September 2004 BERLIN - The German government - in a policy shift - said Wednesday it will seek to ban a planned Islamic conference in Berlin billed by organisers as being aimed at "American and Zionist Nazism." "The Federal Interior Ministry will do everything possible to see that this congress does not take place," said Rainer Lingenthal, chief spokesman for German Interior Minister, Otto Schily. Lingenthal declined to say what measures were planned to prevent the meeting from taking place. Initially the federal government said it was up to the city of Berlin to decide whether to ban the convention - but local officials declined to take action. The "First Arab, Islamic Congress in Europe", scheduled for 1 to 3 October in the German capital, has been slammed by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, an international Jewish human rights group, which wants the meeting banned. Islamic congress organisers declare in their manifesto that people invited to take part are those wanting to make "an intensive contribution ... to the world's resistance movement against the American and Zionist Nazism." Israel is not directly named in the six-page set of principles for the meeting, but organisers go on to say: "(The) Zionist entity is performing a global war of expulsion and of scattering and of physical liquidation of people." Goals supported by the meeting include: -"The liberation of all occupied territories and countries in (the) struggle against American-Zionist hegemony and occupation." -Formation of Arab and Islamic "liberation movement." -Forging united Arab Islamic communities in European states in order to "save our culture, tradition and religion." Those who want to take part in the meeting are informed they must accept key principles to be eligible for admission to proceedings. Among these are viewing the Iraqi resistance movement as "the true representative of the Iraqi people." While the programme does not explicitly support use of violence in Iraq, organisers say the Iraqi resistance "has the legitimacy to use all legitimate means to oppose the conquering and occupying American forces and their lackey collaborating 'governmental council' that does not represent the will of the Iraqi people." A further principle on which the congress insists is refusal to recognise the "occupation or violation" of any part of the country of Palestine as well as Iraq, Syria or Lebanon. "The Palestinian and Iraqi resistance ... are performing a legitimate, holy and principal duty," concludes the congress programme. The entire conference agenda can be viewed at: http://www.anamoqawem.org/berlincall.htm. DPA
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 20 2004, 08:51 AM
http://headlines.sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13570835&headline=Yoga~violates~Islamic~Law:~Cleric
QUOTE
Jerusalem: The growing enthusiasm for yoga in Egypt has received a setback with a mufti reportedly issuing an edict declaring it un-Islamic. The edict signed by mufti Ali Gomoa, considered the highest theological authority, says: "Yoga is an ascetic Hindu practice that is forbidden for use in any manner - neither for exercise or for worship", local media reported quoting an Al-Hayat report. "It is an aberration" whose practice in any form is "forbidden under Islamic law", the edict says. Yoga centres are said to have sprung up at all the tourist resorts in Egypt and is said to be very popular among western tourists
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 20 2004, 09:19 AM
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem40920.htm
Posted by: Viren Sep 20 2004, 02:29 PM
QUOTE
How can you justify it when the Quran clearly lays down the ways to give talaq? It says that first efforts should be made for reconciliation between husband and wife by an arbitrator. In the second stage, further efforts should be made, and then, if nothing works, talaq becomes the final solution. Triple talaq contradicts the message of Islam
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=36316&headline='Indian~Muslims~must~shed~fear,~join~mainstream’
Posted by: Mudy Sep 20 2004, 09:52 PM
Just now finished watching most disgusting horrifying net clip of beheading of Jack Armstrong in Iraq. People who say Islam is a peaceful religion should watch and those who claim it are done by few. Either just shut up or Voice against those criminals. Silent Muslim majority is fully responsible and party of these acts.
Posted by: muddur Sep 20 2004, 11:37 PM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=36316&headline='Indian~Muslims~must~shed~fear,~join~mainstream’ Indian Muslims must join mainstream Mohammed Wajihuddin Posted online: Monday, September 20, 2004 at 1014 hours IST Updated: Monday, September 20, 2004 at 1606 hours IST Rafiq Zakaria’s latest book, Indian Muslims: Where Have They Gone Wrong?, has initiated a fresh debate on the issue. It sheds light on his efforts to promote Hindu-Muslim unity and his fears and apprehensions. Excerpts from an interview. • Did you choose Sept 11 for the book release deliberately? I didn’t choose this date for the book launch. When I rang up I M Kadri of Nehru Centre, Mumbai, he told me that that was the only date available in the next two months. Then I contacted Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh and Mahrashtra’s Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde. Not only did they promise, but also thrice confirmed that they would be there. Sadly, they couldn’t make it. They all had to be in Delhi for a meeting. I was reminded of a couplet by late Ali Sardar Jafri: ‘‘Is shor-e-siyasat se khamosh chalaja/ Jinki hai yahaan dhoom woh kam yaad rahenge.’’ (Pass quietly by this hustle-bustle of politics/ The once popular in this field will be less remembered). • At the release, journalist M J Akbar differed with you as well as Goolam Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India, on the question of Muslims being in the mainstream. It’s not a question of disagreement. Akbar gave the issue a different direction. He said Muslims were themselves mainstream. That’s an entirely different approach. You can’t have different mainstreams in the same country. • So you believe that Muslims are out of the mainstream? What I and Vahanvati emphasised was that Muslims need to become part of the mainstream. The fear that they will lose their identity if they join the mainstream is absurd. Akbar also refused to accept that Muslims were a minority. He said numbers didn’t matter as empowerment decided who was a minority and who wasn’t. Akbar said the Brahmins never felt they were a minority. True, the Brahmins are small in number, but they are powerful. But we shouldn’t forget that they are part of the Hindu religion. More than the Brahmins, the Parsis, a microscopic minority, have uplifted themselves and are dominant everywhere. Without confronting with the Hindus, they harnessed their energies, utilised the opportunities. I have always appealed to the Muslims to do the same. Confrontation brought disaster, before Partition and after it. • You are very critical of the Muslim leadership. The Muslim leadership has miserably failed in its duty. Both Sir Syed and the poet Iqbal told the community to embrace new education. Iqbal stirred his community: ‘‘Aaine nau se darna tarze kohan pe arna/ Manzil yehi kathin hai qaumon ki zindagi mein’’ (To fear the new rules and to be adamant about old mores/ These are the obstacles in the path of communities). I tell the same to the Muslims. Look at the Jews. No race was so persecuted for centuries as the Jews were in Europe. And then they told themselves that they had no friends, no well-wishers. They bounced back on their own. Today, they dominate every sector. Most of the Nobel prize winners are Jews. I believe the Muslims can do the same. They have that capacity. I feel that Indian Muslims can lead the Muslims of the world. • In your book, you have likened Al Qaeda to the modern army of Halaku, the medieval marauders. The so-called jihadis have done the greatest damage to Islam. Except for Hassan al-Sabbah who created assassins in the 11th century, no Muslim approved of terrorist activities. Even then, Imam Ghazali, a scholar, told Muslims: ‘‘If you don’t destroy these terrorists, they will destroy you.’’ It’s a very misguided movement. • Some ulema don’t want to get rid of triple talaq. How can you justify it when the Quran clearly lays down the ways to give talaq? It says that first efforts should be made for reconciliation between husband and wife by an arbitrator. In the second stage, further efforts should be made, and then, if nothing works, talaq becomes the final solution. Triple talaq contradicts the message of Islam. • A member of the Muslim Personal Law Board has suggested family planning for Muslims. Do you agree? I welcome this move. Nowhere is it written that Muslims should have many kids. Somewhere, some mad mullahs say something, and the media highlights it. • Some Muslims accuse you of being soft on Hindutva. This is the biggest lie. It’s I who responded to the canard against Islam by the likes of Arun Shourie, Vidia Naipaul and Salman Rushdie. When Balasaheb Thackeray told Time that he wanted to throw the Muslims into the Arabian Sea, I told him: ‘‘But Balasaheb, Muslims will swim back.’’ He laughed and said, ‘‘Yes, we all should live in peace.’’ • So you believe unity will finally replace the discord? Yes. There’s no other option.
Posted by: Sattva Sep 21 2004, 06:38 AM
There cannot be any Hindu Muslim unity because the principle of Islam is one of intolerance
Posted by: Viren Sep 21 2004, 07:41 AM
Interesting article on the bigoted Saudi translation of Koran: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/653wwewi.asp by Stephen Schwartz
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 21 2004, 12:37 PM
QUOTE
Subject: Not so good news about British Pakistanis by Khaled Ahmed of Friday Times, Lahore Not so good news about British Pakistanis Khaled Ahmed's A n a l y s i s ----------------------------------------------------------------------Expatriate Muslims integrate less well with host societies than other expatriate communities. This started happening towards the end of the 20th century as Muslims all over the world sought their identity increasingly in religion. As a result, communities that had lived in peace in diaspora started feeling ill at ease and often found themselves in conflict with the host societies. Most expatriate Muslims don't only feel alienated from the their new home, they also have reason to feel alienated from their old home. The problem of adaptation and acceptance abroad is compounded by an intense realization that back home too the ruling elites are either anti-Islamic or subservient to Western dominance. The preoccupation with politics back home prevents integration in the new home. At the root of the problem is the Muslim idea of the state. What kind of a state does the homo islamicus want to live in? For the time being, the matter is unresolved. There is no doubt that the Islamic state has to be a utopia, but what kind of utopia is not clear. In most countries, Muslims are still agitating for the establishment of this perfect state. If Islamic theory of the state is coherent and consistent then wherever the Islamic states have come into existence they must be identical. But the examples of Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan are inconsistent and even conflicting. The Islamic state in Iran is gradually reforming itself away from its pristine early ideal. It is in conflict with the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and to some extent with the Islamic republic of Pakistan. Most Arab expatriates in the UK are alienated from the 'Islamic' states they have fled. Negative indicators of integration: Talking in Lahore on 2 April 2001 about the Pakistani expatriate community living in the United Kingdom, Professor Muhammad Anwar of the University of Warwick, revealed significant research findings. The Pakistanis living in the UK are 700,000, the third largest minority community. (There are a million Indians in the UK.) The majority of these British Pakistanis are Kashmiris, including those displaced by Mangla Dam in Azad Kashmir. They are concentrated in four regions: 30 percent in and around London, 22 percent (100,000) in Birmingham, 20 percent (65,000) in Bradford, 20,000 in Manchester and 15,000 in Glasgow. The figure of 700,000 has grown from 5000 in 1951. Today, because of high birth-rate, fully 47 percent of them are under the age of 16, as compared to 17 percent for whites. They have the highest unemployment rate, five times more than the British average; and crime rate is higher among them than in any other community. Fully 2 percent of the prisoners rotting in British jails are Pakistanis, the highest for any one community. Unemployment is the cause of alienation and crime among them. Aggressive organizations like Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun have come up by exploiting the unrest among the British Pakistani unemployed. There is discrimination in the UK against them and, as always, it is based on how 'different' the Pakistanis are from other citizens. The speaker gave no comparative figures but it was obvious that Muslims were less easily employed because of their namaz timings, fasting timings and conflicting Eid days, requiring the employers to make special arrangements. In the case of Muslim women, hijab came in the way of employment. After repeated experience, the employers simply refuse when they are faced by a Muslim or a Pakistani applicant without confirming whether he would insist on namaz exemptions or not. Pakistani Christians are however more readily accepted in the market. [This is also true of the private sector in Pakistan where Muslim employees usually lean on namaz for general absenteeism.] No good future prospects: Another figure which is comparable to Pakistan is the remarkable superiority of educational performance among girls. In the 5-plus category of grades, there were 41 percent girls compared to 21 percent boys. [In 1994, this figure was 22 percent girls and 20 percent boys, which means that the crisis of integration is of recent origin.] Girls didn't mind getting married to Pakistani boys in Britain but increasingly resisted being married off to boys in the family back in Pakistan. British Pakistani boys (5 percent) did not marry British whites to the same extent as the blacks, and girls (1.4 percent) hardly married whites, thus pointing to the limits of integration of the Pakistani community. Another factor standing in the way of integration is the community's involvement (around 75 percent) in Pakistan's politics back home. Since Pakistani politics has become more and more religious, it is difficult for a British Pakistani to try consciously to participate in Britain's secular politics. In terms of proportion, the community should have 8 members in the House of Commons instead of the one there now. Staying out of the competition for rights, the Pakistani community has also been hit hard by the death of Britain's textile industry. Fully 20 percent of the community had been involved in this sector. Prof Muhammad Anwar predicted that in the next ten years the Pakistani community in the UK will suffer further decline in integration and prosperity. He said that the community's Islamic and Pakistani identity will become stronger, which clearly means that there would be less integration. This will lead to more discrimination against them by a society coming under the influence of what he called Islamophobia. Negative role of Pakistani clergy: Pakistan was host in March 2001 to two British Pakistanis from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council in the United Kingdom. They were accompanied by another British Pakistani who was secretary-general of The Muslim Council of Britain. They told Pakistani audiences about the performance of the Pakistani community in the British political system. Blackburn is near Manchester and has 25,000 inhabitants, a majority of them from Mirpur, Jhelum, Gujrat and Rawalpindi. The area had 27 mosques, each mosque manned by an imam and a khateeb, both sent from Pakistan. The majority of the mosques were in the control of the Deobandis, the school of thought now most involved in jehad in Afghanistan and Kashmir, arousing among some sections of Pakistan the 'fear of Talibanisation'. In the UK, there are 1500 mosques and one can assume that most of the clerics controlling them come from Muslim 'home' countries. The visiting British Pakistanis expressed dissatisfaction with the clerics sent from Pakistan and thought that imams and khateebs more suited to the British Pakistani social environment should be chosen. The British parliament is going to consider a Terrorist Act bill which the government announced on 28 February 2001, containing a list 21 organization that the government wants banned on grounds of their terrorist activity. Needless to say, most of these organizations are Islamic. Out of them three belong to Pakistan: Harkatul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Tayba. In Pakistan these are all powerful Deobandi-Wahabi outfits carrying out Pakistan's jehad in Kashmir. The Muslim Council of Britain has already protested to the government about their inclusion in the list of terrorist organizations on the plea that they are a part of a liberation movement and could not be labelled terrorist. It is quite natural that the Pakistanis living in the UK are all agreed that they should not be banned. And their representatives, even if they disapprove of the activities of the three in the UK, have to go along with the community. What the list tends to demonstrate is the general British view of how integrated the Muslim community is. Needless to say, the two India-based organizations, Babbar Khalsa and International Sikh Federation, dubbed terrorist in the list, will not be defended by the one million British Indians. It indicates the higher level of integration achieved by the Indian community. Negative Muslim view of Christianity: In a recent book Islamic interpretations of Christianity (Edited by Lloyd Ridgeon, Curzon Press) the authors make a survey of what British Pakistani clerics think of Christianity. In a secular society like the UK it hardly matters what the expatriate community's religious opinion is, but it does matter if one considers the dynamic of adjustment and assimilation essential to the future prosperity of the Pakistani community. Prof Muhammad Anwar noted in Lahore that the Pakistani community was at the vanguard of the religious reaction to the two great events which had engaged the attention of the British nation: the Gulf War and the Salman Rushdie affair. The Pakistani community chose to clash with the political and cultural ethos of the UK by transplanting the religious politics of Pakistan to their host country. According to his research findings, 75 percent of the Pakistanis in the UK were fully engaged in politics 'back home'. The Pakistani clergy in the UK has not been able to properly interpret the Quranic edicts about Christianity and were compelled to pronounce a hostile opinion when interviewed. In particular the late Medinan verses (9:29-35) asking the Prophet PBUH to attack the Christians and force them to pay jizia, are not reconciled with the earlier verses favourable to the Christian faith. Apart from one Muslim scholar, no effort has been made by Muslim clerics to study Christian theology and the scriptures which they are bound by their faith to denounce as forgeries. Much of Islamophobia in the UK has been aroused by the indecision in the Muslim mind about what kind of state he wants. British Muslim organizations, Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun, who believe in caliphate and oppose democracy, opened their offices in Lahore in 2001. In its first gathering, al-Muhajirun called for the overthrow of the Musharraf government. In the UK these organizations are considered a bit extreme but find little support. Additionally, they cannot indulge in any activity against British law because enforcement of the law in the UK is efficient; but in Pakistan, which is 'soft' internally, the two organizations can become factors of destabilisation, giving rise to the accusation that the UK is exporting Islamic terrorism to the Islamic states.
Posted by: rajesh_g Sep 21 2004, 12:49 PM
http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm It starts with...
QUOTE
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization. Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah Convinced that mankind which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith to support its civilization and of a self-motivating force to guard its rights; Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 23 2004, 09:42 PM
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1022432,0015002200000000.htm
QUOTE
Army Headquarters was "dismayed" at Arif trooping to a TV studio along with his wife and her second husband, Taufiq, and then participating in a mock panchayat to decide which of the husbands gets to keep Gudiya — who is eight months pregnant with Taufiq's child and visibly ill. As in the real-life panchayat, the verdict went in favour of Arif, even as a feverish Gudiya kept on muttering, "I don't even know whether to live or die." The TV show was titled ‘Kiski Gudiya (Who does Gudiya belong to)?’ ... In the meanwhile, Gudiya was married to her cousin Taufiq of Pataudi, Gurgaon. Arif and Gudiya had lived as husband and wife for only about a week before the Kargil conflict broke out and he had to join duty on the front.
What a bizzare religion where woman had no choice? Surprisingly no p-sec is voicing anything against this.
Posted by: Viren Sep 24 2004, 08:04 AM
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1681.html
Posted by: Peregrine Sep 24 2004, 08:13 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040924-120647-9243r.htm LONDON — The beheadings of two Americans in Iraq this week have been treated as unwelcome developments in the Arab press, but the concern has been more for the image of Muslims than for the victims. Most organizations continued to cast the outrage as a small part of a wider conflict in which the United States is seen as the prime culprit. "There has been little sign of the outrage that greeted the kidnapping of two French hostages last month and none of the soul-searching prompted by the ... siege" at a school in Beslan, Russia, said Sebastian Usher, who monitors the Arab media for the British Broadcasting Corp. A survey of the Arabic press in the past few days found that almost all reported the kidnappings of two Americans and a Briton and the Internet posting of statements and videotapes depicting the grisly killings of the two Americans. Appeals for mercy from the family of British hostage Kenneth Bigley also were widely reported. But in most cases, the stories were quickly overtaken by extensive and colorful reports of bloodshed elsewhere in Iraq or in the Palestinian territories. Al Jazeera, the most widely watched Arabic television channel, conducted a telephone poll during its top debating program, the Other Direction. In it, 93 percent of viewers said they approved of kidnapping foreigners in Iraq — even though by then, one of the two American hostages had been decapitated. In Baghdad, law professor Adnan al-Jabbari described the beheadings in a telephone interview as "a distortion of Islam." "There should be organized demonstrations against these acts," she said. "But there has also been violence against those who speak out, and that's why many people are afraid." Laborer Mohammad Jassem, however, defended the right of Iraqis to kill and terrify Americans and those who work with them. "Who told them to come here and sell our fortunes?" he asked. "I would not only kill an American, I would slaughter him and drink his blood. We'll never forget what the Americans have done to us. ... "Every honorable Iraqi approves of killing Americans and beheading them. They should get out of our country." The debate on Al Jazeera, which did not poll viewers on beheading as a tactic, featured a fiercely anti-American political analyst, Talat Rumayh, alongside a moderate Iraqi politician, Karim Badr. Mr. Rumayh described the kidnappers as Iraqi resistance fighters and complained that too much emphasis was put on the relatively small number of hostage killings. "Two thousand people have been killed since the beginning of the attack on Fallujah, which is dismissed in one report, one line or just a couple of words ... while we keep hearing about the hostages. It's the hostages and the terrorists, always the terrorists," he said. Mr. Badr retorted that all of Iraq was disgraced by the beheadings. "We have to prove our humanity. I am addressing my brethren in Iraq: These are masked creatures that resemble humans, who I am certain are uglier than their deeds," he said. "Is the kidnapping and murder of people in this manner an act of resistance? I am certain they do not represent the Iraqi conscience in any way at all." Al Watan, the official newspaper of the Qatar government, which hosts the U.S. Central Command, condemned the kidnappings. The Muslim world should adopt a moderate attitude towards Islam and curb militants who are distorting Islam's image," it said. But Egypt's semi-official Al Ahram newspaper turned the blame onto the Bush administration. "The main reason behind this phenomenon is the foreign occupation of the country," it said. "It has brought to the country a circle of chaos and instability." The Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar noted the same "underlying" cause but suggested that hostage-taking was counterproductive. "The occupation forces have not managed to bring peace and security to the country," it wrote. "As for the groups in Iraq which claim Islam and raise Islamic banners, they should stop their abductions. They should show charity in not tarnishing Muslims' reputation." The Algerian newspaper Echourouk el-Youm took a tough line, saying, "For Arabs to focus their debate on crying over foreigners' abductions rather than rallying around the Iraqi resistance is a strong indication that the American policy to uproot the resistance is working." But other Arab newspapers reported that an imam in Liverpool, England, home city of Mr. Bigley, had joined with a Christian leader there in appealing to the kidnappers to imitate Allah's "all merciful" quality and spare the remaining hostage's life. Really? Cheers
Posted by: Viren Sep 24 2004, 10:33 AM
http://www.expressandstar.com/artman/publish/article_63987.php
QUOTE
His new book, he says, is a warning for moderate Muslims to defy the militants and save their communities "from the impending doom." His message to the Blair Government is to control the "mosque culture" which is producing fanatics and pass a law banning the preaching of Jihad (holy war) "which is nothing but a euphemism for violence." He admits he could never have forecast September 11, "because I live in Britain and was thinking only in British terms. But I believe things are going to get a lot worse." Only last week, he says, he had "a friendly warning" from a Muslim in Luton that the fatwa on him will be renewed if the new book is published. "Some say I am a fool or an extremist," he laughs. "But I am only telling the truth as one who has studied Islam for 70 years."
Posted by: Mudy Sep 24 2004, 11:04 AM
Anwar Shaikh is showing similarity between UK and Kangress government, Mullah culture everywhere, some comments are intersting Same is happening in India
QUOTE
"The so-called mullahs and Muslim scholars in the mosques want to keep the people ignorant because that is where they get their power. They are ruining the modern generation of Muslims who were born and bred here, telling them they have no loyalty to this country. Unless you do something about Muslim fundamentalism, there is going to be a huge fifth column in our midst."
Kangress/Indian govt mentality He denounces the "pampering" ethnic policies of Whitehall and some city councils: "They are disastrous because they have failed to integrate the Muslim immigrants with the British society. In the massacres following the partition of India in 1947 he was a young Muslim who took part in the slaughter of non-Muslims. He helped beat three Sikhs to death
Posted by: Bhootnath Oct 3 2004, 08:33 AM
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/oct2004-daily/02-10-2004/main/main13.htm There is only one Islam, taught by Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and which teaches peace, love and moderation and there is no enlightened or so-called liberal Islam, as propagated by the president," Qazi told a gathering of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) workers from all over the world Allah ho Akbar ..
Posted by: Mudy Oct 3 2004, 01:38 PM
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/caruba093004.htm
QUOTE
...... Muhammad, an Arab merchant with what appears to be a powerful sex drive, promulgated some significant changes as he put together Islam to bring the various Arabian tribes under his control. The most obvious change he instituted was the right of a man to have four wives. When Muhammad took a fancy to the wife of an adopted son, Ziad, a quick divorce ensued and a marriage followed (Koran 33:37). Muhammad was given special dispensation (Koran 33:50) to have a score of wives and concubines. His second wife after the death of his first was literally a child who was married off to him at the age of six and had her marriage consummated at age nine. He was 53 at the time. ohmy.gif The notion of four wives is clearly out of step with the Judeo-Christian tradition of one man and one woman forming an exclusive union. Multiple marriages (for men only) were, however, an effective way for Muhammad to induce early converts to Islam. Moreover, under Islam, a man could also keep any number of concubines. There's even a mechanism to sanction what we in the West would call "one night stands" called a "m'uta marriage." It is banned by Sunnis, but reportedly still permitted by Shiites. In short, men were given license to satisfy their lust and, at the same time, produce more children to increase the population of Muslims. Muslim apologists maintain that women have equal rights, but Muslims recommend, above all other considerations, that a woman be a virgin when she marries and that she marry early. Islam appears to limit sex exclusively to marriage, but historically Muslim men were given access to as many women as they could afford, as wives, as concubine, or as "right hand possessions", i.e., women captured in war. Conversely, sex between two unmarried people is regarded as "filthy." Indeed, sex and hygiene is the subject of detailed attention. Islamic laws and traditions regarding sex are extensive and detailed. The most intimate details of sex are discussed and the actions to be taken before and after are described. Where Islam is the state religion, there is a pathological obsession with "modesty" that Westerners would call "puritanical" in terms of their own society. How much of the reaction throughout much of Middle Eastern Islam to Western attitudes and behavior about sex fuels the widespread terror war cannot be known. If Muslim men were to lose the actual control their society and culture exercises over women, it would undermine much of the reason to be a Muslim
Posted by: Viren Oct 4 2004, 08:11 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109649868174931873,00.html WALL STREET JOURNAL Exhibition Killing By AMIR TAHERI September 30, 2004; Page A16
QUOTE
Who are we allowed to seize as hostage? Who are we allowed to kill? For the past few weeks these questions have prompted much debate throughout the Muslim world. The emerging answer to both questions is: Anyone you like! Triggered by the tragedy at a school in Beslan, southern Russia, last month, the debate has been further fuelled by kidnappings and "exhibition killings" in Iraq. Non-Muslims may find it strange that such practices are debated rather than condemned as despicable crimes. But the fact is that the seizure of hostages and "exhibition killing" go back to the early stages of Islamic history. In the Arabia of the seventh century, where Islam was born, seizing hostages was practiced by rival tribes, and "exhibition killing" was a weapon of psychological war. The Prophet codified those practices, ending freelance kidnappings and head-chopping. One principle of the new code was that Muslims could not be held hostage by Muslims. Nor could Muslims be subjected to "exhibition killing." Such methods were to be used solely against non-Muslims, and then only in the context of armed conflict. Seized in combat, a non-Muslim would be treated as a war prisoner, and could win freedom by converting to Islam. He could also be ransomed or exchanged against a Muslim prisoner of war. Non-Muslim women and children captured in war would become the property of their Muslim captors. Female captives could be taken as concubines or given as gifts to Muslims. The children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy Islamic rights. Centuries later, the initial code was elaborated by Imam Jaafar Sadeq, a descendant of the Prophet. He made two key rulings. Whoever entered Islam was instantly granted "full guarantee for his blood." And non-Muslims, as long as they paid their poll tax, or jiziyah, to the Islamic authority would be protected. Recalling this background is important because what we witness in the Muslim world today is disregard of religious tradition in favor of political considerations. * * * A survey of Muslim views over the past weeks shows overwhelming, though not unanimous, condemnation of the Beslan massacre. But in all cases the reasons given for the condemnation are political rather than religious. Muslim commentators assert that Russia, having supported "the Palestinian cause," did not deserve such treatment. Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim scholar based in Qatar, was among the first to condemn the Beslan massacre. At the same time, however, he insists that a similar attack on Israeli schools would be justified because Israeli schoolchildren, if not killed, could grow up to become soldiers. (Sheik Qaradawi also justifies the killing of unborn Israelis because, if born, they could become soldiers.) That view is shared by Ayatollah Imami Kashani, a cleric working for the Iranian government. He claims that, regardless of what it has done against the people of Chechnya, Russia must not be attacked because it has supported "the greater cause" of Palestine. In other words Chechen Muslims are less worthy of consideration than Palestinian ones. That view is shared by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a grouping of 57 Muslim countries. Its secretary-general, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, has issued a strong condemnation of Beslan. But he has not said a word about dozens of other terrorists attacks carried out by Islamists across the globe. Implicit in all this is that killing innocent people in the lands of the "infidel" is justified for as long as the victims are not citizens of states sympathetic to "the Arab cause," whatever it happens to be at any given time. That position was highlighted in the Arab reaction to the kidnapping of two French journalists by Islamists in Iraq last month. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa led the call for their release with these words: "France is a friend of the Arabs; we cannot treat friends this way." This was echoed by Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, who appealed for the release of the Frenchmen, something he has not done for any of the 140 foreigners who have been kidnapped in Iraq. Yasser Arafat has been more specific. "These journalists support the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi cause," he said in a statement issued in Ramallah. "We need guarantees for the security of friends who support us in battle." In other words the Frenchmen must be freed because they support the Arabs, not because holding hostages is wrong. The French authorities have reinforced that sentiment. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin speaks of the Iraqi insurgency as "la résistance." And Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has announced that France would reject the international conference on Iraq, proposed by the Bush administration, unless "elements opposed to the occupation," meaning the terrorists, are invited. The OIC Secretary-General Belkeziz has also promised to leave no stone unturned to ensure the release of the French hostages. The same Mr. Belkeziz has said nothing about hostages from some 30 other countries, including some members of his own organization. Nor has he been moved by the cold-blooded murder of 41 hostages, including Muslims, from 11 different nationalities. Abbasi Madani, a former leader of the Front for Islamic Salvation, has started a hunger strike "in solidarity with our French brethren." This is rich coming from a man whose party and its allies caused the death of some 200,000 people in his native Algeria during the 1990s. Mr. Madani never missed a meal in solidarity with the countless Algerians, including women and children, that his fellow Islamists slaughtered. Yet even more disturbing is the attitude of Muslim organizations in France and Britain. Both have sent delegations to Iraq to contact the terrorists and ask for the liberation of two French, and one British, hostages. The French delegation, led by Mohamed Bechari, went out of its way to advertise France's "heroic opposition" to the Iraq war in 2003. "I am here to defend France's Arab policy," Mr. Bechari told reporters. "In Iraq as well as in Palestine, France is for the Arabs." The two British Muslim delegates made their case in a different way by arguing that, although Britain participated in toppling Saddam Hussein, a majority of the British were opposed to the war. Thus British hostage Ken Bigley should be released not because hostage-taking is wrong but because such a move could strengthen anti-war sentiment in Britain. By refusing to come out with a categorical rejection of terrorism, Muslim leaders and opinion-makers are helping perpetuate a situation in which no one is safe. The 9/11 attacks against the United States were based on the claim, made by al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that all citizens of democratic countries could be murdered because, being actual or potential voters, they have a share of responsibility for the policies of their governments. The assumption that only Americans and Israelis are targeted has proved false as Islamists have murdered hundreds of peoples from all faiths, including Islam, in a dozen countries in the past three years. Today, it is enough for anyone to designate himself as an Islamic "Mujahid," fighting for Palestine and opposing the "occupation" in Iraq, to get carte blanche from millions of Muslims, including many in authority, for kidnapping and "exhibition killing." That no one, Muslim or "infidel," is safe was made clearer by a statement from Abu Anas al-Shami, the self-styled "mufti" of al Qaeda, who was reportedly killed in Iraq in an American air attack last month. "There are times when Mujahedeen cannot waste time finding out who is who in the battlefield," he wrote. "There are times when we have to assume that whoever is not on our side is the enemy." Al-Shami's position echoes a fatwa of the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, one of the founders of the Islamic Republic in Iran. Ayatollah Khalkhali wrote: "Among those we seize hostage or kill, some may be innocent. In that case, Allah will take them to his paradise. We do our job, He does His." Mr. Taheri is an Iranian political commentator based in Paris.
Posted by: acharya Oct 5 2004, 04:57 PM
Intellectual Challenge to Islam In the speech to Labour Conference Tony Blair said that Islamic terrorism is no ordinary terrorism like that of IRA that could be dealt with by patient resolve. It is underpinned by more patience and higher resolve like that of the 'Wahabi' Movement of Saudi Arabia and madrassa movement of Pakistan. 'John Kerry' and President Bush go even further and say that nuclear weapons in the hands of 'rogue states' is the principal threat to peace in the world. The Islamic world is facing a threat - intellectual and military - that is unprecedented in history. The Diaspora Muslims can do little to articulate a response to the military threat but they are in a very good position to meet the intellectual challenge. The existing Muslim forums in the USA and the UK are inadequate because they focus on lobbying the government. We need to agree on universal message and objectives of Islam, express these in political rather than religious language, and try to get all of the 1500 million Muslims to become a vehicle of propagation of the message. Let us prove Tony Blair right. The Muslims are not only more patient and resolved; they are also right. London Institute of South Asia is ready to play its part in the effort. + Usman Khalid + Director London Institute of South Asia
Posted by: acharya Oct 6 2004, 03:58 PM
Demographic change needed in Islamic countries - 09/07/2004 12:30 The massacre of schoolchildren and other innocent people at Beslan by Chechen terrorists has once again brought the dangers posed by Islam to the forefront and it is high time to tackle this problem. It is not enough to identify the perpetrators of the particular crime; it is time to solve the larger problem of the violent nature of Islamic societies. While taking power away from religious leaders is part of the solution, the other part lies in converting Islamic countries into multicultural societies as this is bound to temper them down. History teaches us that this method worked in the United States. Laws against segregation broke down racial barriers. While the anti-slavery laws gave rise to the discriminatory Jim Crow laws, the removal of segregation exposed people to other races and changed attitudes. Similarly, merely changing governments in Islamic countries is unlikely to work, but social change is likely to help reform these societies. Islamic countries deny citizenship and other basic rights to foreigners who live and work in them. Integrating these foreign workers into the mainstream of the countries in which they live will make the people of these countries respectful of diverse cultures. Since the workers already live in these countries, the process of assimilation will be peaceful in nature. Muslims do not treat others the same way they expect others to treat them. Muslims in the American state of Michigan loudly demanded that they be allowed to broadcast prayers from a mosque over a loudspeaker, protested any discussion over the issue and got the local government to give in to their demands. However, people of other religions in Islamic countries do not have any freedom to worship as they please. When France proposed a law to ban headscarves in public schools, Saudi Arabia-s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh called it an ?infringement of human rights,¦ but within a week after that, he gave a stern warning to women who did not wear veils at an economic conference at Jeddah. Over the years, even though Muslims as well as others judged non-Islamic countries based on the implementation of the concept of separation of religion and state, Islamic countries were allowed to become fundamentalist in nature. Indeed, the first country formed based on a religion v Pakistan v is a country meant for Muslims who refused to live peacefully with people of other religions. In other places where Muslims form a minority, they have demanded the right to secede and set up a theocracy on the basis that they are Muslims. It is no secret that many Muslims harbor the desire to change the demography of the world and make it predominantly Islamic in nature. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are already active in making this dream come true. These countries make sure that they have safe sanctuaries to further the growth of their fundamentalist ideology while they expect other countries to be open to them and embrace multiculturalism. The world must reject the existence of such exclusive territories that are breeding grounds for Islamic fanaticism. When South Africa practiced apartheid, many countries boycotted it, but there is no such pressure on Islamic countries to reform. There is no reason that Islamic countries should get away with gross violation of human rights and utter disregard for ideas like freedom, immigration by non-Muslims, scientific progress, respect for women and equality of races. It is often pointed out that Islam and liberty are incompatible or that democratic systems cannot survive in Islamic countries. Islamic societies are bound to change if they become pluralistic in nature. Voltaire, the French philosopher, was not too far off the mark when he wrote in his letter on that England would have to fear despotism if it had just one religion, that they would cut each other-s throats if it had two, but there were thirty of them and so the people lived in peace and happiness. Any attempt to take power away from the religious leaders without changing the demographic structure is bound to fail, as fanatic religious leaders who advocate violence will crop up like hydra-headed monsters in territories where fundamentalists have a free reign. The international community should ask the Islamic countries to reform and open up their countries to immigration. A change in the demography of Islamic countries is bound to benefit everyone, most of all the Muslims who will become free from the clutches of authoritarian rulers and will progress. Arvind Kumar
Posted by: Peregrine Oct 11 2004, 03:22 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3725520.stm A bomb has exploded at the Indonesian embassy in Paris, injuring up to 10 people including embassy staff. The explosive device was in a parcel planted at the base of a flagpole outside the embassy, French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin said. Flying glass caused most of the injuries, officials said. Four embassy staff are said to be among those hurt. France said later it was boosting security around embassies and other "sensitive sites". ”No specific threats” Indonesia's president-elect, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, said the blast was a terrorist act. "I strongly condemn the terrorist act done at the Indonesian embassy in Paris," said Mr Yudhoyono, who is to be sworn in later this month. "I do hope the government of France will take appropriate action to bring the perpetrator to justice," he told reporters. Windows of nearby buildings and cars were shattered by the blast, which left a small crater in the street. The embassy is at 47-49 Rue Cortambert. It is not known who was behind the explosion, which startled residents of Paris' exclusive 16th district at around 0500 local time (0300 GMT). "I had the impression I was being hurled from my window," a local woman, Annie Mayret, told the Associated Press news agency. Mr de Villepin said he was not aware of any specific threats but the blast was "obviously an act with criminal intent". Police investigators had sealed off the street around the embassy and were combing it for clues. Militants linked to Islamist causes have repeatedly struck at western targets in the world's most populous Muslim nation, most recently bombing the Australian embassy in Jakarta. Both Paris and Jakarta have been vocal critics of the US-led campaign in Iraq. Cheers
Posted by: Mudy Oct 14 2004, 12:01 PM
This quote is from somewhere, I want to know is it true.
QUOTE
You know if you research, you will find under shariah, you are not punishable for killing a non muslim, unless he/she was part of the Islamic state, a dhimmi, that is why no blood money is paid for a kaafir's killing...
Posted by: k.ram Oct 14 2004, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Oct 15 2004, 12:31 AM)
This quote is from somewhere, I want to know is it true.
QUOTE
You know if you research, you will find under shariah, you are not punishable for killing a non muslim, unless he/she was part of the Islamic state, a dhimmi, that is why no blood money is paid for a kaafir's killing...
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.50; Narrated by Abu Juhaifa, states: I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur'an and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man with, and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)." http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/d/dh/dhimmi.html
Posted by: Mudy Oct 29 2004, 01:56 PM
'Talaq' a sin? Lucknow - Pioneer A model marriage guideline prepared by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) proposes to declare as 'grave sin' the triple 'talaq' given without adequate reason. According to the guideline (nikahnama), to be considered by the board at its annual session at Kozhikode on December 26, 'talaq' without an adequate reason and triple 'talaq' are gunah (sin).
Posted by: rajesh_g Oct 29 2004, 02:03 PM
wonder what 'adequate reason' means .. blink.gif
Posted by: Mudy Oct 29 2004, 02:23 PM
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20041028015617&Page=K&Title=Southern+News+%2D+Karnataka&Topic=0& Hampi tense as migrant accused of bestiality Thursday October 28 2004 18:18 IST HAMPI: The countdown to the Hampi festival has started but that’s not the reason for the town’s tense moments. A Kashmiri migrant settled here has been accused of bestiality. According to the complaint, Bashir Ahmed (35) had allegedly used a cow to satisfy his urges on the night of Oct.23. Witnessing the incident, Kiran Tayappa Naik, secretary of Hampi Hitarakshana Vedike, took a photograph and lodged a complaint. With the Hampi festival scheduled for inauguration on Nov. 3, Hampi Hitharakshana Vedike and Bajrang Dal have decided to launch a joint protest against violating the sanctity of the place. Superintendent of Police Pankaj Kumar Thakur denied rumours that Hampi was tense and said that the accused had already been arrested and produced before court. He was in judicial custody. Kashmiri migrants usually set up antique stalls – the numbers go up to 120 – between September and January, when tourists peak. The Vedike alleged that there was pressure on Naik to withdraw the complaint. Hampi Hitarakshana Vedike plans to urge the state to reopen cases of torture of foreign tourists, registered in the last few years. Chidanandamurthy is expected to participate in the protest.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 31 2004, 07:34 PM
October 11, 2004 Saudi Arabia: Non-Muslims Urged to Respect Ramadan — Or Be Deported Islamic tolerance alert: if non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia want to eat during daylight hours in Ramadan, they better not let any Muslims see them — or they could end up being deported. From the Saudi Press Agency, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist: Riyadh, Oct 11, SPA -- The Interior Ministry yesterday requested non-Muslim residents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to respect feelings of Muslims during the fasting month of Ramadan by abstaining from eating, drinking and smoking in public during the day. The ministry also warned that violators of the rules could face deportation. "Authorities will take deterrent measures such as terminating work contracts of, and deporting, violators," said a statement from the ministry. "Non-Muslim residents of this country must respect Muslims' feelings by refraining from eating, drinking or smoking in public places, in the streets and in workplaces during the dawn-to-dusk fast observed by Muslims throughout the holy month," the statement said. The ministry reminded non-Muslims in the Kingdom that they are obliged to respect Islamic rules and follow the Kingdom's regulations on the basis of the terms of their contracts. The ministry called upon companies and individual employers to explain the statement to their non-Muslim staff and caution them against violating it. www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmi...003516.php
Posted by: rajesh_g Nov 1 2004, 05:37 PM
http://www.hindu.com/2004/10/29/stories/2004102908420100.htm
Posted by: rajesh_g Nov 1 2004, 05:51 PM
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/31/international/asia/31cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1099285200&en=91c4669ae0b4d8f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage stereo.gif
Posted by: k.ram Nov 2 2004, 05:17 AM
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-netherlands-filmmaker-slain,0,5075486.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines
Posted by: Sunder Nov 2 2004, 08:03 AM
http://http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEA20041101113920&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0 HYDERABAD: Parts of the old city of Hyderabad witnessed bouts of violence on Monday even as the State Government ordered a probe into the firing by Gujarat police on Sunday night. The incident had left one person dead and several injured. After Home Minister K Jana Redy directed the City police to submit a report within 24 hours, the latter registered a case of murder against the Gujarat police for resorting to firing. The same Hyderabadi Govt which bootlicks the PWG goons is booking the Gujarat police for shooting a known terrorist & a minister killer.... and only when it was Physically attacked by the goons. The unrest was a fallout of the firing by Gujarat police near the DGP's office on Sunday night. On several occasions, the police had to open fire to rein in the rioting mobs on Monday. A team of Gujarat police, led by Assistant Commissioner Narendra, had come to the City to arrest Mohammed Naseeruddin, head of Tehreeke-Tahfuz-e-Shaire Islam (TTSI) and a suspected Laskhar-e-Toiba sympathiser, for his alleged involvement in the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya last year. On learning about his arrest, scores of young TTSI supporters and other groups staged a dharna and attacked the Gujarat police, forcing the latter to open fire. While 26-year-old Mujahid died, many others were injured. Some irate mobs went on the rampage and threw stones at the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) office at Saidabad in the afternoon when the body of Mujahid was being taken to his home. The police opened 20 rounds of fire in the air to quell the mobs. The police clamped Section 144 in the affected area as, at one stage, the trouble began assuming communal overtones with members from two communities throwing stones at each other. Some policemen were injured in the violence.
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 2 2004, 12:31 PM
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2004-daily/02-11-2004/main/main12.htm ZHONGMOU, China: At least 20 people have been killed in clashes between the Muslim Hui minority and the Han majority in central China’s Henan province, with the area put under military blockade on Monday. "There are more than 10 Hui Muslims who died and more than 10 Han died," said an employee surnamed Wang from a taxi company in Zhongmou county, where the clash occurred. Residents told AFP that violence between Huis and Hans erupted last week after Hui truck drivers from the Hui populated Nanren village tried to pass through a village mostly inhabited by Han Chinese and a Hui was beaten up over a traffic dispute. Villagers from both sides fought each other with farm tools, they said. The government late on Monday confirmed a violent clash occurred. Seven people were killed, 42 injured and 18 arrested, the official Xinhua news agency said. The clash began on October 27 and continued until on Sunday but was now under control, Xinhua said. It said that violence erupted when a villager surnamed Lu from Nanren village fought with a man surnamed Liu from Nanwei village over a traffic dispute. Lu and several Nanren villagers later went to Liu’s home and assaulted him and his family, Xinhua said. Afterwards, residents of both villages assembled weapons and fought each other. One villager was beaten to death on the spot and two died in hospital a day later, Xinhua said. The New York Times reported that almost 150 people were killed but residents sought to play down the figure. An official surnamed Chen with the Henan Religious Affairs Bureau told AFP: "Officials have been sent there to try and calm down the two sides. When the clash erupted, the situation was intense." After reducing the Muslim Ujguir Majority (Over 90% in 1949) in Xinjaing to 45% by implementing a vigorous “Hanization” programme now it is the turn of the Muslims in Heenan. Will Lotastaan and the Islamic Ummah or for the matter the Indian Muslim Leaders utter a Dicky Bird? Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 3 2004, 08:24 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3978787.stm The man suspected of killing Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh is a suspected radical Islamist with alleged terrorist links, the Dutch authorities say. The man, aged 26, with dual Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, had "radical Islamic fundamentalist convictions," Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said. Van Gogh, who had made a controversial film about Islamic culture, was shot and stabbed in Amsterdam on Tuesday. The suspect was allegedly a friend of a detained Moroccan terror suspect. Samir Azzouz, 18, is awaiting trial on charges of planning a terrorist attack on targets including a nuclear reactor and Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. But the suspected killer of Theo van Gogh did not belong to the hardcore group of around 150 suspected militants under surveillance by the intelligence services. Tensions The government held late-night crisis meetings amid fears the killing could exacerbate Dutch race relations. About 20,000 people attended a memorial gathering for the 47-year-old film maker in Amsterdam on Tuesday. Among them were many Muslims, to demonstrate that they condemned the killing. Van Gogh was shot and stabbed to death as he cycled in broad daylight through an Amsterdam street. Two knives were left in his body, one pinning a note to his chest, said by Dutch media to contain lines from the Koran. Death threats He had received death threats after his film Submission was shown on Dutch TV. It triggered an outcry from Dutch Muslims. The film portrayed violence against women in Islamic societies - in one scene an actress in see-through garments was shown with Koranic script written on her body, which also bore whip marks. Mr Van Gogh - who was related to the famous Dutch painter - had also been making a film about Pim Fortuyn, the populist right-wing, anti-immigration politician assassinated in May 2002. The Netherlands is home to nearly one million Muslims, or 5.5% of the population. Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2004, 08:39 AM
QUOTE
The Netherlands is home to nearly one million Muslims, or 5.5% of the population
Large number of them are from Pakistan and small percentage are from Indonesia.
Posted by: ramana Nov 3 2004, 08:56 AM
Interesting thing is Western Europe has allowed a lot of Pakistanis to settle down.
Posted by: rajesh_g Nov 3 2004, 09:09 AM
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=5458
QUOTE
Sources close to the Palestinian leadership said a bitter fight had broken out over who should control the ailing leader’s fortune estimated to be between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion.
Isnt this more then OBL's stated wealth ?
Posted by: Viren Nov 3 2004, 09:24 AM
QUOTE (rajesh_g @ Nov 3 2004, 12:09 PM)
Isnt this more then OBL's stated wealth ?
OBL was worth about $300 million about 2 to 3 years ago. With Arafat in range of $4B to $6B, he might even make it into the Forbes Richest list. Guess 'freedom struggle' was good for the wallet. How many Nobel Peace Prize winners are billionaires eh? whistle.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2004, 09:49 AM
QUOTE
Interesting thing is Western Europe has allowed a lot of Pakistanis to settle down.
Easy immigration policy. Pakis are very good in money marriage to local girls to get immigration and later bring whole extended family and marry 4-5 times paki girls. Some area of Norway, FInland, Denmark, Netherland can be called as Little Pakistan. On top, Pakis bring there own Mullahs for Mosque.
Posted by: rajesh_g Nov 3 2004, 12:40 PM
cross posted.. Carl had posted this on BR http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK02Aa04.html
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 3 2004, 01:29 PM
Mudy Ji : Here are the details of the Muslim Population in Netherlands : http://www.cbs.nl/en/publications/articles/webmagazine/2004/1543k.htm On 1 January 2004 an estimated 945 thousand Muslims were living in the Netherlands, compared with fewer than half a million in 1990. Two-thirds of the total number of Muslims* in the Netherlands are Turks and Moroccans. Muslims made up 5.8 percent of the total population on 1 January 2004. Their number will grow in the years to come and is anticipated to exceed 1 million in the course of 2006. Muslims in the Netherlands, 1 January user posted image Half of non-western foreigners are Muslims Over 95 percent of Muslims have a non-western background** but not all foreigners are Muslims. Some 54 percent of all non-western foreigners living in the Netherlands are Muslims. Turkey and Morocco Muslims from Turkey constitute the largest group (328 thousand) followed by Moroccans (over 295 thousand). Together they make up two-thirds of all Muslims in the Netherlands. Muslims by country of origin, 1 January 2004 user posted image Second generation Apart from immigration the number of Muslims is also growing on account of the children born in Muslim families. On 1 January 2004 some 38 percent of non-western Muslims belonged to the second generation. Their share has grown in the last six years because the number of second generation foreigners in the Netherlands is increasing. Significant regional differences There are significant differences in the number of Muslims in the various regions. The highest percentages are found in the COROP areas*** including the big cities. In Greater Amsterdam 13 percent of the population are Muslims, in The Hague 11.4 percent and in Groot-Rijnmond 10.2 percent, followed by the Zaanstreek with 9 and Utrecht with 7.2 percent. The percentages are lowest in the north-east of the country. In the provinces of Friesland and Drenthe less than 2 percent of the population are Muslims. Share of Muslims per COROP area, 1 January 2004 user posted image The distribution of Muslims over the various Dutch regions is closely linked to the number of non-western foreigners. In Greater Amsterdam one in four persons are non-western foreigners. In The Hague and Groot Rijnmond the rate is just over one in five. The lowest percentages of non-western foreigners are found in south-west Friesland and south-east Drenthe (3 percent). Ron Tas Source: StatLine *Number of Muslims The number of Muslims is estimated. The method of computation is based on the number of foreigners by origin and the share of Muslims in the countries of origin, excluding Surinam, Morocco and Turkey. The share of Muslims from these countries is based on the survey ‘Social position and use of provisions by foreigners’ (1998). In this survey respondents are asked to what religious denomination they belong. **Non-western background The category 'non-western' foreigners comprises people from Turkey, Africa, Latin America and Asia with the exception of Indonesia and Japan. On the basis of their socio-economic and socio-cultural position immigrants from Indonesia and Japan are included in the category ‘western’ foreigners. These are mainly people from the former Dutch East Indies and employees of Japanese companies and their families. ***COROP areas The division of the Netherlands into 40 COROP areas was introduced around 1970. COROP areas add up to provinces The Lotastaanis getting into Holland – to my knowledge – claim Religious and Political Asylum i.e. Ahmediyas, Shias and Ismailis to name a few. The Sunnis claim that their lives are in danger due to the Military Regime which is oppressing the “Democracy Minded Sunnis” liar.gif Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2004, 03:15 PM
QUOTE
The Lotastaanis getting into Holland – to my knowledge – claim Religious and Political Asylum i.e. Ahmediyas, Shias and Ismailis to name a few. The Sunnis claim that their lives are in danger due to the Military Regime which is oppressing the “Democracy Minded Sunnis
Living situation is terrible, they live in very ghetto type of environment. There are lot of Indonesian restr around and in shops or tourist places one can find Pakis working. Lot of Pakis call themselves Afghanis to get easy entry.
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 3 2004, 03:23 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 4 2004, 03:45 AM)
Living situation is terrible, they live in very ghetto type of environment. There are lot of Indonesian restr around and in shops or tourist places one can find Pakis working. Lot of Pakis call themselves Afghanis to get easy entry.
Mudy Ji : The sizable Indonesian Muslim Population in Holland is from two sources i.e. Indonesian Immigration - from an Ex Colony - and from Surinam where the Dutch had taken a lot of Immigrants especially for farming. To this you must add the Indian Muslims who went to Surinam (Durch Guayana) along with the huge number of Indians who migrated to British and Dutch Guayana as well as Trinidad etc. Lotastaanis are fewer in number but very heavily involved in Drugs, Associated Crimes and of course Terrorism. You are absolutely right in your statement about Lotastaanis masquerading as Afghanis. Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 3 2004, 03:26 PM
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-11-2004_pg4_25 COLOMBO: Police have imposed a curfew on a town in eastern Sri Lanka after 7,000 Muslims scuffled on the streets late on Monday following a hand-grenade attack that wounded 13 people, including three policemen, officials said. Eastern Province Deputy Inspector General of Police Neville Wijesinghe said fighting broke out in Kattankudi, in Batticaloa, when a suspected group of Muslim converts used a hand grenade to attacked traditional Muslims praying at a mosque after breaking their Ramadan fast. The incident did not involve Tamil Tiger rebels, who control large pockets of Batticaloa. Reuters Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2004, 08:09 PM
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_islam.html http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/september03_index.php?l=2 http://www.brookings.org/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm
QUOTE
It’s worth remembering that Europe’s Muslim population is an unintended consequence of actions taken nearly a half century ago. During the postwar labor shortage in the 1950s and 1960s, Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were called to help spur Europe’s economic recovery. No host country expected these “guestworkers,” as the Germans called them with characteristic frankness, to overstay their welcome. Like all good guests, they were supposed to leave, preferably when the recession hit and the party was over in the 1970s. They didn’t. Instead, their families joined them, and new generations of European Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were born. More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent. A parallel process of Muslim enfranchisement is accompanying this population surge. Nearly half of the 5 million to 7 million Muslims in France are already French citizens. The situation is similar for most of the 2 million Muslims in Great Britain. Most recently, in 2000, Germany joined the countries where citizenship is granted according to birthplace instead of ancestry. The new German citizenship laws added already a half million voters to the rolls and have opened the road to citizenship to all other Muslims in Germany. With currently 160,000 new Muslim citizens a year, the number of voters might total 3 million in the next decade.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 3 2004, 08:20 PM
http://www.theislamproject.org/education/Western_Europe.htmluser posted image
Posted by: k.ram Nov 4 2004, 07:20 PM
http://www.victimsofjihad.com/
Posted by: rajesh_g Nov 6 2004, 07:33 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15802
Posted by: Krishna Nov 7 2004, 02:13 PM
THE NETHERLANDS Filmmaker critical of Islam killed While bicycling in Amsterdam, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, whose work has denounced Islam's treatment of women, was shot and stabbed to death. A suspect was captured. BY GLENN FRANKEL Washington Post Service LONDON - A Dutch filmmaker who outraged members of the Muslim community with his works' attacks on the treatment of women in Islamic society was gunned down and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street Tuesday morning. Witnesses said a gunman opened fire on Theo van Gogh, 47, as the filmmaker bicycled down Linnaeus Street in the eastern part of the city, then chased him on foot, shot him again and stabbed him. Some reports said the killer slit van Gogh's throat with a knife as the victim lay helpless on the pavement. After a shootout in which one policeman and a bystander were slightly wounded, police wounded and captured a suspect whom they identified only as a 26-year-old man of dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality. Chief prosecutor Leo de Wit confirmed the killer had left a note on Van Gogh's body, the contents of which were not disclosed. Friends and associates said Van Gogh, a distant relative of the painter Vincent Van Gogh, had received anonymous death threats after Dutch television aired his controversial short film Submission in August. The film featured four women who claimed to have been abused by their Muslim husbands and who wore see-through robes showing their breasts, with texts from the Koran scrawled on their bodies. It was the second political killing to shake this socially tolerant European country in recent years. Pim Fortuyn, an outspoken politician critical of open immigration and Islam was gunned down in May 2002 by an environmental activist who labeled Fortuyn a ''danger'' to society. Tuesday's killing set off a new round of soul-searching and dismay among many people in the Netherlands. ''There is a climate that sees people resorting to violence -- that is worrying,'' Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at a news conference in Amsterdam. `A CHAMPION' He called van Gogh ''a champion of the freedom of speech,'' and warned against polarization and intolerance in Dutch society. ''On a day like this we are reminded of the murder of Fortuyn,'' he added. ``We cannot allow bullets to rule our society because then dialogue is impossible.'' Amsterdam residents held a memorial gathering Tuesday evening at Dam square in the city center. ''We will show loud and clear that freedom of speech is important to us,'' declared Job Cohen, Amsterdam's mayor. He said van Gogh would not have wanted a silent vigil. ''We do not want silence, we want noise,'' Cohen said. SHOCK Among those who attended were Muslim groups who condemned the killing as barbaric. ''People are rather shocked and embarrassed,'' said Yassin Hartog, coordinator of the Islam and Citizenship Foundation, a group that promotes peaceful dialogue. ``Everybody wants to make sure we all stick together, Muslims and non-Muslims. Tonight's meeting is for everyone who is outraged at this event.'' Hartog, a convert to Islam, said van Gogh's film had deeply insulted many Muslims but that he had been invited to address a meeting of the Moroccan community in Amsterdam. ''He was very outspoken, but he was not a racist,'' Hartog said. ``He was attempting to show in his own way where religious views and liberal views clashed.'' Van Gogh made Submission in collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch politician and former Somali refugee who said she had fled an arranged marriage and physical abuse in her native country. Ali, who has renounced Islam, has been under police protection since the film was aired because of threats against her life.
Posted by: Krishna Nov 7 2004, 02:40 PM
Here's the video that he got killed for: http://kiwi.hlm.cyberhq.nl/mirror/submission/submissionpart1.avi Word of caution: Do not watch in front of kids or at a public place.
Posted by: k.ram Nov 7 2004, 06:41 PM
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1286272004
Posted by: Mudy Nov 8 2004, 10:36 AM
QUOTE
From Arabnews.com ‘Tash Ma Tash’ Sparks Serious Debate Maha Akeel, Arab News JEDDAH, 1 November 2004 — Reaction to one of television’s boldest episodes continues to reverberate in social gatherings in the Kingdom. In the episode, aired on Thursday, the Saudi satirical serial “Tash Ma Tash” exposed the reality of the spread of Islamic extremist thought and provocation in our schools and the entire education administration. The episode presented a boy’s high school where a science teacher rather than teaching his subject is on the rampage about the duty of every Muslim to kill all non-believers and not to show them sympathy or have any relationship with them. This teacher, who is bearded and has a malicious look, is also shown badgering another moderate teacher for not agreeing with his views and going to the extent of reporting this other teacher to the principal, who shares his views and in turn report him to a committee at the Education Administration for having “deviant ideas that destroy our youth’s minds and religion”. When the moderate teacher goes to the administration to report to higher authorities on the spread of this extremist, intolerant attitude, he is faced with people there having the same attitude. The message is clear — the dangerous consequences of allowing these kinds of people to poison the minds of youth. “Everything in the episode is true, unfortunately,” said a source at the Girls’ Education Administration. “It is one of the reasons for the spread of intolerance in our society and even terrorism. Even though the Ministry of Education has warned teachers against teaching things not in the curriculum or not part of their subject and especially not to give any edicts, some teachers continue to do so but schools usually take action against the teacher if she is reported on,” she said. She also said that changes were made in some books because for years they included some biased and unsubstantiated teachings that were unnoticed or ignored. But, Morooj Ibrahim, a student in high school said that her religion teacher insists on sneaking in some of these removed teachings in her lecture and no one says anything to her as long as it is not in the exam. A male source at the Education Administration also said what was shown in the Tash Ma Tash episode was a reflection of what the situation is at the administration especially for those considered moderate. “Having a beard is almost an unwritten law and is expected of all employees as part of our look,” he said. Parents are particularly disturbed by what their children learn in school from these extremist teachers. Abu Rami transferred his 10-year-old son from his public school to a private school because he kept asking him about whether non-Muslims and even Muslims of different sects will go to heaven or hell and how he should react to them. “I found out that his teacher was feeding them all this extremist thought and it scared me,” he told Arab News. On the other hand, those who are conservative were completely offended and angry about the episode’s portrayal of them. “I don’t like this stereotypical portrayal of religious people as being narrow minded and intolerant,” said Umm Ahmad. “Not all of us who conform to a strict attire or all men with beards are fanatics or potential terrorists. There are deviants among all sections of society,” she said. The actors of Tash Ma Tash have received death threats after the episode on terrorism was aired last week.
Posted by: Sudhir Nov 8 2004, 01:19 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=7&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_school_explosion
QUOTE
Dutch intelligence officials have had the center under observation since reports it hosted an Islamic seminar in 1999, said to have been attended by Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, and Ramzi Binalshibh, the suspected liaison between al-Qaida and three of the hijackers who were based in Hamburg, Germany. The mosque was frequented by two Muslim youths killed in Kashmir in January 2002 in an alleged suicide attack on Indian troops. And the school was the target of two minor arson attacks last year.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 12 2004, 11:44 PM
http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1164.html
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 14 2004, 07:52 AM
From : The Sunday Telegraph – A Subscription Site : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=UVLF0ZLAIMQMHQFIQMFCM54AVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2004/11/14/wchin14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixworld.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=57632 By Damien McElroy in Zhengzhou (Filed: 14/11/2004) A convoy of military lorries roared along the dirt track leading to a fertile valley of rice paddies and ridges of garlic shoots in central China. Green-uniformed soldiers equipped with razor-wire and cannons stared out blankly at Chinese police, who stood to attention as they passed through a checkpoint. They were heading for two neighbouring villages, Nanren and Weitang, which have co-existed peacefully for centuries - but where, earlier this month, martial law was abruptly declared after a row over a traffic accident escalated into pitched battles that left 148 people dead. user posted image The soldiers' mission was to prop up the facade of ethnic harmony, constructed by the country's Communist dictatorship over the past 55 years but dramatically undermined by the eruption of conflict between Hui Muslims and their Han Chinese neighbours. The troops sealed off the villages to prevent other militants coming to the aid of their fellow Muslims and stop the fighting spreading across China. At a checkpoint near the villages, a policeman boasted of his efforts to keep out "foreign" agitators and admitted that the situation was tense. "Our leaders are still holding talks between the two sides but there has been no resolution yet," he said. "Relations are very bitter. Too many people have died in a bad way." Just 10 days since China's worst outbreak of inter-communal violence in more than a decade, Communist Party officials fear that the unrest in Henan province - the birthplace of China's 4,000-year-old civilisation - is a worrying sign of trouble to come. The country's politburo security chief has made the rough 400-mile journey from Beijing, an unusual foray by a senior Communist official to such a poor outpost - a collection of ramshackle brick buildings, where dogs hunt for food in piles of rubbish strewn around the pot-holed streets. In the nearby provincial capital, Zhengzhou, a city of skyscrapers and more than two million advertising hoardings, officials are perplexed by the sudden detonation of violence in the hinterland. As he plucked at a designer-label cashmere sweater, a Hui Communist Party official said: "There were hundreds of people stopped on planes and buses, attempting to travel to Nanren before the army was deployed." The violence is a setback for the Chinese government's policy of permitting a modest Islamic revival among the Hui, one of the country's most moderate Muslim minorities. It was also a sign that underlying ethnic tensions across China's teeming territory are a continuing challenge to Beijing's rule. At stake is the imperative set out in the official government slogan, "The 56 ethnic groups are one family." The fighting broke out after a Han youth crashed his motorcycle into a Hui builder's tractor, tipping it over. The confrontation soon escalated into pitched battles between mobs armed with shovels and hammers. Molotov cocktails were launched across the river between Nanren and Weitang - the former predominantly Hui, the latter Han - and Huis from around the country flocked to assist their beleaguered brothers. A local imam said that one of his followers was found beheaded in rice paddy ditches, a Hui official told The Sunday Telegraph. "They share the same market, but the Hui people are insulted by the Han's behaviour," he said. "The Han stallholders try to sell them pork, pushing it in front of their faces all the time. Now the imam says the Han in Weitang are savages who mock our traditions by cutting our throats." By appearance there is nothing to distinguish the 10 million Hui from other Chinese: only their faith sets them apart. They are descendants of Muslims who traded along the Silk Road between Europe and Asia, and married local women. In Henan province they number 900,000 among a population of 95 million. Unlike China's other sizeable Muslim minority, the Uighurs of western Xinjiang, the Hui have never been involved in separatist violence. Now, however, they are becoming increasingly militant in asserting their Islamic identity - partly to prevent their assimilation into the rest of the population, 93 per cent of whom are Han. Yet many Han are critical of the Hui claim to a separate identity. "They are not a real minority," said Liu Yue, a portrait artist in Zhengzhou. "They don't have their own language, they don't have their own customs, all they do is refuse to eat pork. "Our government gives them too much favourable treatment. If a Hui is caught speeding, he'll just show his skull cap and the officer will let him off."Comments : Rings a bell – doesn’t it? At an Islamic centre in Zhengzhou, where writing on the wall is in both Arabic and Chinese script, passions were clearly aroused by the trouble between Nanren and Weitang. Perhaps ominously, the mosque leaders appear sympathetic to the insurgents in Iraq. The mosque's Ramadan letter declares: "In our Muslim world, our brothers are suffering a great disaster. "Their actions in self-defence have been judged to be extremist terrorism, but they are struggling in an imperialist war that is killing people and rotting modern civilisation." The defiant mood in Iraq is apparently shared by mosque elders, a foretaste of further problems ahead for the Chinese authorities. "If our brothers are being attacked," said one elder, Lao Mai, "it is a duty in our religion to join them in the fight." Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 16 2004, 08:32 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4618066,00.html BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Tuesday said foreign Islamic extremists were helping separatists launch attacks in Thailand's Muslim-dominated south, but he denied international terrorist organizations were sponsoring the conflict. Two village defense volunteers slain late Monday were the latest casualties of the bloodshed, which has claimed at least 540 lives since January, when an insurgency in the country's three mostly Islamic provinces that was believed to have abated flared up again. ``The separatist movement is actively creating trouble, and they have Muslim extremists from foreign countries helping them,'' Thaksin told reporters. ``The assistance is not in the form of a terrorist organization or at the governmental level, but as individual friends they met while studying abroad.'' It was Thaksin's most direct statement yet about foreign involvement, although he has previously accused southern Thais of having ties with Malaysian militants. Thaksin said hundreds of Thai Muslims had traveled to Middle Eastern countries to further their education, and that Thai security agencies believed some of the students may have received terrorist and militia training abroad. He did not name any countries. Defense Minister Gen. Sumpun Boonyanun said hundreds of Islamic youths had received military training in Muslim countries, including some of Thailand's neighbors. Malaysia and Indonesia have Muslim majorities. ``The intelligence sources show that the Muslim youths have gone for military training in several Muslim countries, but it is not appropriate for me to mention the countries by name because they are our friendly nations,'' Sumpun said. Security officials in Southeast Asia say members of the regional extremist group Jemaah Islamiyah attended hardline religious schools in Pakistan, and that some joined al-Qaida recruits from the Middle East at terror training camps in Afghanistan prior to the U.S.-led war there. Thaksin said his security forces had ``a clear picture'' of the separatist movement. ...... Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 18 2004, 10:49 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=259354 Nov 17, 2004 — AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A translator at the Dutch AIVD intelligence service is suspected of leaking information to two groups of Muslim militants including one allegedly linked to the killing of a filmmaker, prosecutors said on Wednesday. The authorities arrested a 34-year-old AIVD employee on Sept. 30 on suspicion of betraying state secrets. They held three others on suspicion of distributing the information but they were released last week due to a lack of evidence. A prosecution spokesman said the main suspect, an interpreter and translator at the AIVD who is now in custody, was suspected of tipping off a group in Utrecht suspected of possessing explosives, possibly for an attack. The man, identified by the Dutch Volkskrant daily as a Moroccan named Othman Ben A., is also suspected of leaking information to an Amsterdam-based group of Muslim militants linked with the Nov. 2 killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The murder of Van Gogh, who enraged some Muslims with a film criticizing Islam, sparked a surge of sectarian violence, including arson attacks on mosques, churches and religious schools. Volkskrant said the AIVD employee founded a lobby organization that worked to counter negative portrayals of Muslims in the media since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The prosecution spokesman declined to comment on the man's identity. Dutch authorities are holding seven men in connection with Van Gogh's murder, including chief suspect Mohammed B., a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan. In Spain on Tuesday, a judge accused a Moroccan inmate of membership of an Islamic militant group to which Mohammed B. allegedly belonged. Dutch media reported the Netherlands handed over an Algerian man with Spanish residence to Spanish authorities last week on suspicion he posed a threat to national security. The Justice Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the reports, which said the man was among a group of suspects acquitted by a Dutch court in 2003 of allegedly helping to recruit fighters for "holy war." The case was based on intelligence reports whose credibility could not be verified. The Dutch government has since proposed changing the law to allow information gathered by the secret service to be used as evidence in courts. Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Reggie Nov 20 2004, 09:53 AM
Mr. van Gogh was never fond of Muslims and regularly had referred to them by a name that accused them of bestiality with goats. wink.gif http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20041118-104554-6909r.htm
Posted by: Mudy Nov 23 2004, 09:13 AM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=38720
Posted by: Mudy Nov 24 2004, 08:13 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/24/opinion/edpfaff.html
Posted by: Krishna Nov 26 2004, 03:38 PM
This is comments from the ground, regarding that Van Gogh's murder. Everyone, please watch this video: http://fomi.ytring.dk/Video/vanGogh-DTV2.wmv (about 3.35 MB)
Posted by: Peregrine Nov 27 2004, 08:59 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6479272/site/newsweek/ Europeans talk of ethnic tolerance. But events in the Netherlands show how dangerously they are divided By Stryker McGuire Newsweek International Nov. 22 issue - What's wrong with this picture? The airspace over the city is declared off-limits to all unauthorized aircraft. Some 200 police, including rooftop snipers and antiterror forces in balaclavas and bulletproof armor, descend on a neighborhood near the main train station. At one house, three officers are wounded by a hurled grenade. After a 14-hour siege, assault teams arrest two suspects and charge them under antiterrorism laws. "We cannot let ourselves be blinded by people who seek to drag us into a spiral of violence," the prime minister tells a shaken nation. So what's wrong? The city is The Hague, and the country is the Netherlands—famed for tidy bicycle lanes, a well-mannered citizenry and the court where Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes. "The International City of Peace," as The Hague styles itself, is a bastion of global law and order, literally—home to the Peace Palace, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. As for Holland, the land of Erasmus and Spinoza, it was once hard to imagine a more tolerant society, or one that, after its occupation by Nazi Germany and the annihilation of 130,000 Dutch Jews at Auschwitz and Sobibor, was more committed to consigning political violence to history. Over the past two weeks, though, all established notions of Dutch life have been turned on their head. The tumult began on Nov. 2 with the gory killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, whose documentary "Submission" was an attack on Islamic treatment of Muslim women. His alleged assailant, a Muslim who considered van Gogh's film blasphemy, fired half a dozen bullets into his body, slit his throat and, with a knife, pinned to van Gogh's chest a note proclaiming jihad against Holland, Europe and the United States. The police quickly arrested a suspect—a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri—and scooped up seven other young Muslims, charging them under antiterror laws. Within days an escalating spiral of violence engulfed the country. A Moroccan immigrant was killed in the town of Breda. Attacks on mosques and Muslim schools brought retaliatory attacks on Protestant churches. Meanwhile, antiterror police launched a series of raids, including the one in The Hague, which police said they traced to a separate plot to kill the woman who wrote the script for "Submission," Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The drama is in some ways peculiarly Dutch, but it has sent shock waves through the rest of Europe. The violence is clear evidence that immigration, if badly managed, can be a destabilizing force even in the most seemingly settled of European societies. It underscores the fact that the clashes of civilization taking place at the global level—between Muslims and Christians, between religious fundamentalism and secularism—are also unfolding inside individual communities and countries on a smaller but still dangerous scale. And it shows that the war on terror is sometimes just down the street: police last week claimed to find a number of links between Bouyeri and international terror groups. With 16 million inhabitants, including 1 million Muslims, the Netherlands is Europe's most densely populated country. Because much of the nation lies below sea level on land reclaimed from the sea (the polder) and protected by fragile dikes, Dutch society has long depended for its survival and well-being on the ability of its people to get along and live side by side in mutual respect. Holland's weakness is not immigration, per se; it is the special 21st-century mix of badly managed immigration, religious fundamentalism and international terror networks. French political scientist Catherine de Wenden believes the Netherlands erred first and foremost by failing to integrate its immigrant population, which is predominantly Muslim from Turkey and Morocco. By funding religious schools that isolated many migrant children from mainstream Dutch life and by not doing enough to encourage immigrants to learn Dutch, even as job prospects were diminishing, the government created ghettoes of discontent, especially among those who came from outside Europe. University of Amsterdam anthropologist Thijl Sunier says immigrants to Holland—and even their second- and third-generation descendants—are treated like "foreign guests." They are "visiting an island," Sunier says, and, unlike immigrants in, say, Britain, most of them live outside the greater society. Tensions over what to do about immigration have risen sharply in recent years. By the 2002 national elections, immigration had taken center stage—the heart of a Dutch identity crisis. Populist politician Pim Fortuyn called for Holland to rethink its policies. His simple slogan—"Holland is full"—resonated enough with ordinary Dutch that his party quickly became the most popular in the country. Then a radical environmentalist assassinated him. Ever since, unease over immigration has defined the nation. Enter Van Gogh's accused killer. Bouyeri was a member of what's called the "one point five" generation: born in the Netherlands, but of Moroccan-born parents. A man like Bouyeri would never feel at home in Holland, supposes Mohamed Bibi of the Rotterdam immigrant-support organization PBR. Abandoning his studies, unable to find a job, craving identity, he would "seek calm in Islam," says Bibi. For all but an almost infinitesimal number of adherents, the religion would be a comfort and a guide, not a springboard to murder and terror. But Bibi believes Bouyeri's alienation from mainstream society may have been so profound as to render him choice fodder for recruiters who encouraged his radicalization. The same may be true of other Muslim "lost boys" who have been linked to Bouyeri since his arrest. According to reports in the Netherlands, some of the other young suspects arrested have links to the terror group Takfir wal Hijra. The group's alleged leader, Mohammed Achraf, who has been held in a Swiss prison since August, telephoned Bouyeri in September at his home in Amsterdam, according to Dutch intelligence. Spanish police believe Achraf is linked to a plot to bomb a Madrid court building. Watching events unfold in the Netherlands, the rest of the region knows it's looking into a mirror. The once admired Dutch "polder model" has grown increasingly ill suited to today's Europe, much less tomorrow's. Already the Netherlands has the second largest Muslim population in Europe in percentage terms (6 percent, compared with 7 percent in France). Britain, Denmark and Sweden all have just over 3 percent. Norway, Finland and Ireland have among the smallest Muslim populations in Western Europe, under 1 percent. But even in such countries, tensions often run high because of the speed at which the Muslim community has grown. In Ireland, for instance, the number of Muslims quadrupled (to 19,000) between 1991 and 2002, spawning headlines like this one in the Irish Daily Mirror last April: ALLAH BE RAISED. Declining native populations mean most of these countries will continue to suck in immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. If Turkey's bid for membership in the European Union survives political opposition, that country's 68 million Muslims will in 15 to 20 years be part of the EU. Accommodating Muslims who take their faith seriously will thus increasingly become the issue for Europe. Religion, especially religious fundamentalism of any stripe, does not fit easily into highly secularized, modern European society. Witness the French government's ban on Muslim headscarves (and any other "conspicuous" religious symbols) in state schools. Witness, too, Bavaria, which last week became the latest of four German states to ban Muslim schoolteachers from wearing headscarves. (Bavaria does not ban Christian or Jewish symbols.) Van Gogh's case, says Fuad Nahdi, the founding editor of Britain's QNews, "brings us back to Salman Rushdie and the question of what is the status of religion in a modern secular state." In Holland, the short-term response to van Gogh's murder and its aftermath will be tougher immigration policies, coupled with measures to encourage integration and assimilation. Already the Dutch Parliament has voted to shut down Muslim radio stations and Web sites. But it's an open question whether such steps will contain the damage or spread it. The problem for the Netherlands, and Europe, is that issues of religion and immigration have become explosively conflated with terrorism. Three days after the van Gogh killing, Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm said, "We are declaring war" to "make radical Islamic movements disappear from the Netherlands." The fanatical blow of an assassin against a filmmaker on a busy Amsterdam street thus, rightly or wrongly, becomes part of a chain stretching from the World Trade Center and Bali through the Madrid train bombings to Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. "Of course we have to take measures against violent and aggressive behavior," says Amsterdam city official Ahmed Aboutaleb. "But let's not let these measures get out of hand." Dutch police, however, are no longer erring on the side of caution. Last week's 14-hour siege in The Hague yielded a personal phone book containing the name of Abdeladim Akouad, who is being held in Spain in connection with the 2003 Casablanca suicide bombings that killed 45 people. With police combing the country and dozens of suspects of all sorts being paraded into Dutch jails, the Netherlands is re-examining much more than its ethnic mix. "We must ask ourselves if we have not been naive over the past few years—ask ourselves if we have not for so long agreed to take in anybody [as immigrants]," said Dutch Justice Minister Rita Verdonk last week. "We Dutch are easy prey," says Jon Wolter Wabeke, a senior judge in Amsterdam. "We're vulnerable because we're a soft, tolerant society." Now, suggests anthropologist Sunier, the Dutch are anxiously redefining the limits of tolerance. Early casualties are sure to be the country's immigrants, especially Muslims. As the ghosts of Erasmus and Spinoza look on, Holland's challenge will be not to bury the culture of tolerance entirely. With Friso Endt in The Hague, Eric Pape in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Emily Flynn and Marie Valla in London © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Cheers cheers.gif
Posted by: Sudhir Nov 30 2004, 12:40 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,15568,1362591,00.html
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 4 2004, 02:21 AM
http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/news/features.php?action=fullnews&id=45848 Leftie complains about muslims !! Amazing !
Posted by: Mudy Dec 4 2004, 09:06 AM
QUOTE
Leftie complains about muslims !! Amazing !
Now, Muslims are chasing commies in Kerala, Commies are making just little noise, They still consider them brothers. They are not calling them fanatics or Jihadist or fundamentalist which are reserved for some other ethnic group..
Posted by: Mudy Dec 4 2004, 08:36 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1387077,00.html By Charles Bremner The Times
QUOTE
Islamic fundamentalism is causing a 'clash of civilisations' between liberal democracies and Muslims DAYS before she was due to be married, Ghofrane Haddaoui, 23, refused the advances of a teenage boy and paid with her life. Lured to waste ground near her home in Marseilles, the Tunisian-born Frenchwoman was stoned to death, her skull smashed by rocks hurled by at least two young men, according to police.
Posted by: acharya Dec 5 2004, 08:11 PM
Egypt stance on UNSC enlargement Egypt-UN, Politics, 10/26/2004 Regarding the projected enlargement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit stressed some weeks ago before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that Egypt possesses due regional power elements and enjoys political and social stability in addition to strong international relations with all world countries. The top Egyptian diplomate stressed that in the UNSC enlargement process, it is impossible to ignore the Arab and Islamic dimensions. Since enlargement the membership of the UNSC came to be discussed openly in the early 1990s, Egypt has adopted a judicions approach to the matter. It did not rush heedlessly for unearned booty. Yet, meantime, it did not stop following up closely the case, having in mind the high interests of Egypt. For this end "We kept all channels open with conflicting sides," said the Egyptian top diplomat adding that "we could successfully drive matters towards African Summit's accrediting the significant declaration in Harari in 1997 that Africa is entitled to hold two permanent seats in the UNSC." In this context, Egypt's statement before the UNGA stressed that it did actively contribute in keeping peace at the Arab, regional and international levels. Over and above Egypt assisted in driving forward the UN development efforts as well as achieving targets and objectives of the world organization. Not to mention that the Egyptian statement referred to the fact that we represent more than one billion Moslems and 300 million Arabs. In short, with all those aspects in view, Egypt is well qualified and actually ready to bear the due responsibilities of the permanent membership in the UNSC.
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 6 2004, 11:09 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041205/ap_on_re_as/thailand_origami_airdrop Innovative.. biggrin.gif
Posted by: acharya Dec 9 2004, 11:15 PM
amaat against all forms of oppression By R.K. Radhakrishnan Muhammad Abdul Huq Ansari. — Photo: V. Ganesan CHENNAI, DEC. 9. ``We want the dignity of man restored whether he is a Dalit or Scheduled Caste person... we want every one to be treated equally,'' the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind president, Muhammad Abdul Haq Ansari, said here today. As part of its religious duty, the organisation had taken up a countrywide campaign on human rights. The campaign, begun on December 3, would end on December 12. It took a holistic view of human rights. The campaign was against not merely state-sponsored atrocities but all forms of oppression on all strata of society, he said in an interview. The Jamaat's mass contact programme was aimed at creating awareness and building public opinion against all forms of oppression. "The general opinion against Muslims is that they are more concerned about their own problems. They are not concerned with what is happening in other communities. We want to show people this is not true. Islam is concerned with all communities," said Dr.Ansari, who is on a tour of the country as part of the programme. The programme received overwhelming response from all communities, he said. The campaign demanded that the Union Government enact a prevention of riots legislation and a prevention of genocide law. It also demanded that livelihood be included as a fundamental right. It has launched a signature campaign to mobilise support for these demands. Asked about the image of the Jamaat, Dr. Ansari said people confused religious organisations with those propagating communalism. ``There is no necessary connection between the two.'' There were some religious bodies, which preached enmity. "But this is not the teaching of their religion. They are using their religion for political purposes." For all Indians Since he took charge of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Dr. Ansari has been trying to make it an organisation of all Indians, not just Muslims. Before the Lok Sabha elections, it issued a manifesto outlining the needs of the Indian community in general. "Jamaat-e-Islami is a Jamaat of all Indians, even for all mankind. Our domain is India. We want to work for mankind according to the teachings of Islam." The Jamaat believed in peaceful agitations and tried to inculcate this quality in all Muslims, he said. Communal disturbances Those who wanted to reap political gains started communal disturbances. "This is the only major reason. Those people who are doing it have a particular philosophy. They do not believe in the equality of man. They want to suppress people... they have opposed Mandal Commission recommendations." But this was not part of the Indian tradition, said Dr. Ansari.
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2004, 12:12 AM
self-deleted
Posted by: acharya Dec 10 2004, 08:14 PM
From New Nation Online Edition Editorial Page Minority rights and communalism in South Asia By Prof. M. T. Hossain Dec 9, 2004, 11:37 Every human being is born with some inalienable rights given by the Creator Himself. These are one's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which, in other words, said to be owning property. These basic rights are guaranteed by every civilised society through its Constitution, no matter written or unwritten by convention, UN human rights charter, etc. This means that no state or government would violate any of these human rights except what would be permitted by due process of law. In pursuing these provisions for protection of human rights, government concerned is mandatorily required to use their agencies or state machinery in upholding all human rights. Failure to uphold these rights would be taken as failures of the state organs or administration. Responsible and civilised government must do everything to uphold rights for all citizens irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity whatever. That is how one can explain the issue of minority rights in any state. If the basic rights are protected without any prejudice by the state organs, there could be no question of violation of human rights, much less any point for grumbling of minority rights. Communalism, on the other hand, may be defined as a sort of injured feelings of certain group, minority of any genre as in this case, imaginary, perceived or real, having a sense of experience for violation of their basis human rights. This is how one can appreciate the question of upholding minority rights and scenario of majority-minority communalism. Worldwide scenario of minority rights protection and genres of communalism Minority-majority population division in terms of ethnicity, caste, religion, etc. is a reality in all modern states. Possibly there is no country in the world which is above the injury question of minority rights and sense of despair of minority communities, despite constitutional and other provisions. Even the most advanced countries having a well written constitution or traditionally followed conventions and firmly guarded rule of law, in reality, are not in a position to claim to have fully secured minority rights, because of presence of other adverse socio-economic milieu around. That is why we hear of many clamours, more often than not, in one country or the other about minority rights' violation, and consequent movement for securing rights by those having injured feelings, real, imaginary or perceived. Racial, ethnic and religious divides are common even in the most advanced countries having democratic social order, rule of law, equality or opportunities, etc. known to be well established in those countries. The position in the sub-continent and around Indian subcontinent has a long history of people, rise and fall of empire, change of ruling class and dynasties foreigners coming into and settlement into the land, coming in of foreign originated faiths and ideology, etc. The Aryans, the Muslims and the British are all said to be foreign invaders of the subcontinent originally known to be inhabited by Dravidian locals of different castes, ethnic divides and religious beliefs. The Aryans came to the subcontinent from Central Asia and gave them a new religion of caste ridden social class division nearly three thousand millennium ago. The rise of Buddhism following the Aryans although had had great marks for humanitarian changes for quite a long period, the caste division based Hinduism had been successful to contain egalitarianism of the Buddhist thought and ideas spreading deep into the society in the subcontinent. The Muslims came in nearly one millennium ago with a different but purely monotheist religion establishing their own rule and empire which despite enormous possibilities to break down social class barrier between man and man could hardly succeed mainly due to the domination of the Aryan influence and Hinduism in the vast span of geographical locality. Although the Muslims ruled in the Indian subcontinent for nearly eight hundred years in a continuous go having had changes of dynasties, they failed to establish equality of Islam due to age-old social resitance of the caste bound Brahministic Hindu social system. When the British came in following the downfall of the Muslim rule in the subcontinent in the mid eighteenth century, the English rulers did little to do anything that would break down social divides that existed from historical past, because, continuity of social class divisions well suited their colonisation process. In reality, when they left in mid twenth century, they left their Indian colony, albeit, giving territorial freedom, but the feeling of minority-majority issue was left to exist in high tension than ever before. The high tension was unfortunately, left both in the two independent states of Pakistan and India, mainly in terms of religious divide. Whether the issue was their creation or not is a different matter. In the nearby countries in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, as well, the issue has been live. Sociological background of minority-majority problem and facets of communalism The minority-majority issue has not been created in a day or two overnight. It is a legacy of historical past extending thousands of years if not more. Because, the subcontinent and the countries around have long had experience not only of human habitation but also of interactions of different great faiths of world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, apart from divisions due to ethnicity and racial differences which in a mix up of under development and poverty syndrome gave rise to communal tensions here and there that took the worst form from time to time. As is already said above, and it may be repeated here that human society was never immune from conflicts between man and man. Conflict, antagonism, fighting, killing each other are common occurrences in human society, because of clash of interest, one being private property entitlement and property right which are naturally needed for one's physical survival and happiness to live peacefully in this worldly life. As is well known, there is a saying that "man does not live by bread alone"; one's physical survival is crucial, but when one survives physically well fed, clothed and housed, one seeks further happiness and mental peace through spiritual pursuit. Religion thus comes in the way to play an important role in one's life and so in human society. There is no doubt that human race is one, and so, if we could have one religion for all human beings we could possibly have a religiously homogeneous human society. But the reality is different. We have many religions and so human being is divided between religions, however, undesirable that could have been. But that the reality is. Even so, provided we could have religious tolerance or respect for each other's religions, we could still have a tolerably peaceful society. This is not what the reality is. Human patience and tolerance is only limited, not unlimited. The size of human race, of late, has been more rapidly increasing in number, despite many attempts taken in almost all countries to keep them limited to lower figure. Rapid explosion of population has put strain on the limited resource that nature has given us in this world to exploit and to enjoy for survival of the human race. This has put men in competition for survival and put people to compete more with each other than when the figure remained low. Sheer competition has naturally given rise to added possibility of conflict of interests. that also created urge among people to unite not all together but in different class divisions, be that ethnic, racial, regional or religious. In modern countries, of late, these divisions while taking the form as mentioned here, took sometimes, minority majority dimension which in other form could be communal, as well. In the subcontinent and around, this is very clear, as we have had quite often experienced clashes taking either, ethnic, religious and minority-majority forms. The clashes for over five decades in the Indian held Jammu and Kashmir region, the massacre of the Sikhs in October-November in Delhi and around in 1984, and the Muslim massacre following the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, the massacre of Muslims in 2002 following the Gujarat riot, etc, and the latest massacre of Muslims by army in Thailand on the 25th October, 2004, the minority Muslim repression in Myanmar that gave rise to the Rohingya issue extending over decades, the Tamil annihilation in Sri Lanka etc. in one form or the other are nothing but minority-majority tangle and clear examples of religious minority repression in the region and the subcontinent. In Bangladesh case, there is a propaganda offensive about minority repression, but in substance there is nothing like the situation in other countries in the region. Razz (These fellow must think everyone else is asleep) Exploring options and way out from minority-majority tangle and genres of communalism In any modern nation state in the contemporary global village, elimination of minority-majority issue is unthinkable or impossible to do away with. Any country would have this problem. There is, as such, no question of doing away with the issue but to look for ways to co-habit. The co-habitation modus operandi has to be evolved. On this pursuit, we should think about some options. One option would be to train up all people through proper curricula in schools and colleges to develop respect for each and every human being of whatever genre one could be in terms of ethnicity, religion, caste, etc. and that respectful environment has to be nurtured by socio-political-economic system through democratic system and full adherence to the principle of rule of law. One could think of other options as well, like having a dictatorial and regimented police state or a lone party dictatorial communist state to contain any form of communalism and minority repression through brute state force. But in this age of flourishing stage of science and technology, rising human craving for freedom and liberty, the democratic option should be considered the best to contain minority repression and consequent rise of communalism. No amount of guarantees provided in any State constitution or in the UN charter could ensure human dignity and foolproof protection of minority rights unless the people themselves would nurture in one's psyche deep respect for fellow being's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just as one would like to have for oneself. This is what a Muslim humanist could expect to do, because, Islam has taught to us behave so. That is why we have a Islamic solution in this universal belief system. In the subcontinent and around there is hardly any alternative but to follow the Islamic humanist system. The Hindutva persuation exercises that has been of late going on in India under the fascistic varieties of BJP, RSS, Shibsena, Bajrang Dal, Bangasena, etc. and whose influences are being spread around the subcontinent are only aggravating the position of all minorities in the region, which the renowned Indian intellectual and writer Khushwant Singh has rightly foreseen for India's doom in his latest book entitled, The End of India (2003). In the existing overall syndrome of the Hindu fascists of India doing everything for intimidation and repression against the minorities, not only against the Muslims but against the Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Dalits, as well, Mr. Singh has rightly foreseen of a doom for his own country; the warning could well be taken as a good lesson for all others to learn from. © Copyright 2003 by ittefaq.com
Posted by: acharya Dec 12 2004, 09:18 AM
Jamaat to launch political party in AP Hyderabad, Dec. 11: Jamaat-e-Islami-Hind has chosen Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, the States where it has a strong presence, to launch a front organisation next month that will represent its political platform, sources close to the Jamaat said. “The Jamaat itself will not enter politics. It will float a ‘satellite’ organisation and allow its members to take up all political activities that go with the democratic structure of the country. It may ask the new party to stay away from contesting elections initially but eventually that restriction would also be removed,” the sources said on condition of anonymity. The Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir that operate independent of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (India) have been taking part in electoral politics for a long time. But, the JIH, a religious and social organisation, always had a different view on parliamentary democracy in which the public is the sovereign, not God as it believes. It has taken nearly three decades for the JIH to come to terms with democracy. The first step was to allow its cadre to cast their votes, the next was to campaign for “decent and virtuous” candidates. During the April elections the JIH played a key role in mobilising Muslim public opinion in support of the “secular forces.” And it is happy with the outcome. So it seems ready to take it to the next level. The sources said that one of the major reservations voiced in the consultative council of the JIH was whether those who wish to join the political front should be allowed to retain membership of the Jamaat. But the majority opinion was in favour of those joining the political front being allowed to retain JIH membership because they were not willing to surrender it for politics. However, no decision has yet been taken on the issue of “dual membership.” JIH Ameer Abdul Haque Ansari said that the Jamaat was considering forming a “pressure group” that might be allowed to take up political activity. But he was non-committal on the issue. Nevertheless, it has now become clear that the JIH is in agreement to undertake its first democratic experiment in AP and Maharashtra.
Posted by: acharya Dec 12 2004, 01:22 PM
Indian Muslims react strongly to Altaf's remarks London, Dec. 12 (PTI): Indian Muslims in Britain today reacted strongly to run-away Pakistani leader Altaf Hussain, chief of MQM party, for his repeated advice to them to be loyal to India. "By sermonising us on patriotism this man has been insulting us on the Pakistani TV ARY Digital," Munaf Zeena, Chairman of the Council of Indian Muslims, UK said in a statement. "To us his nonsense is as ridiculous as a whore lecturing the women of the town on chastity and this was the reason why we had ignored him on previous occasions," he said. "Altaf Hussain's logic is in no different from the offensive arguments put forward by the fascist Hindu organizations and like them we give a damn to the MQM chief whose love for his country is obvious in the fact that he has assured his supporters that Karachi will be free by 2008," Zeena said. "The self-respecting Muslims of India do not need any body's certificate or advice on their patriotism and least from a person like Altaf Hussain. He should better keep his domestic politics to its own limits and need not involve Indian Muslims in anyway."
Posted by: acharya Dec 12 2004, 01:32 PM
Send this Article to a Friend Islamic nations discuss reforms RABAT (MOROCCO), DEC. 11. The U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told a gathering of Islamic leaders on Saturday that they must join hands with industrialised countries on political and economic reforms to ease the ``despair and frustration'' that afflicts much of the region. Mr. Powell was one of several speakers who addressed a ``Forum of the Future Conference'' aimed at bringing greater dynamism to Islamic societies and make them less of a breeding ground for political extremism. U.S. criticised But several Arab delegates used the occasion to blast American support for Israel. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said the United States could do a better job of winning the ``hearts and minds'' of the Islamic world by a shift in its policies toward Israel. He said U.S. policies toward Israel are the ``real bone of contention'' with the Muslim community. Focus on Israel The Arab League Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, also drew a link between Islamic reform and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. ``Arab culture is directly influenced by other situations,'' Mr. Moussa said, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. At the same time, he said, ``We need to combat extremism. If we are to build a strong society, we must take a strong stand against extremism.'' Mr. Powell said en route here Friday night that reform in the Islamic world should not be impeded by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ``We can't keep pointing to the Middle East peace process as the reason we don't undertake reform efforts that are needed by these nations and as these nations have identified for themselves,'' Mr. Powell said. Muslim countries ``know that they can't wait for that solution to occur and not move forward,'' he said. `Long-term task' ``Ours is a long-term task requiring a long-term commitment, extending generations,'' Mr. Powell told the delegates. ``This far-reaching effort starts here and now. It's a challenge that must be confronted by all of us working together.'' In addition to Islamic delegations representing the broader West Asia and North Africa regions, officials from the G-8 industrialised democracies were present. The United States and Morocco served as co-chairs. Iran declined on Friday to send a delegation after indicating a willingness to attend. All told, 21 Islamic countries were represented here. — AP[B][/B]
Posted by: acharya Dec 13 2004, 12:58 PM
Muslim body’s internal dispute comes out in open Monday December 13 2004 00:00 IST DHARWAD: The simmering discontent among a section of members of the Anjuman-e-Islam, a prestigious Muslim organisation in Dharwad that runs several educational institutions, has finally come out into the open. For the first time in the annals of the Anjuman, five members of the Muslim community, three of whom sit on the executive committee, have approached the courts questioning the continuance in office of the organisation's president I.M. Javali and his supporters after the expiry of their term. The petitioners have sought the cancellation of the Dec. 19 elections for new office-officers ordered by the committee headed by Javali. Mohd. Babusab Huilgol, Imitiaz Khatib and Sirajuddin Mulla are three of the petitioners who are members of the Anjuman's executive committee. The Principal Judicial Magistrate's Court here, where the petition was filed, has issued a temporary stay on the elections while fixing the hearing of the case on Dec. 14. Among the allegations levelled by the petitioners are the illegal continuance in office by the president; suo moto announcement of polls without prior discussion and getting it ratified by a management committee meeting; non-release of the voters' list before announcing the calendar of events; and violation of the institution's bye-laws on a number of issues. Another charge is the deterioration of the Anjuman's finances under the stewardship of the present leadership. According to Anjuman-e-Islam joint secretary M.M. Choudhary, said to be one of the disgruntled elements, the petitioners had earlier submitted a representation to Javali, seeking his explanation on the affairs of the organisation and his decision to conduct elections. But it was completely ignored.
Posted by: ramana Dec 14 2004, 09:15 AM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL10Ak02.html
QUOTE
The Iraqi elections won't happen on January 30 because the Bush administration wants them: they will happen because Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani wants them. The Shi'ite leader knows it's now or never for the Shi'ite majority in the country to take power. The majority of Sunnis - because of the Fallujah offensive - won't vote: Sunnis comprise from 20% to 30% of Iraq's population. The elections will have no effect on the Sunni Iraqi resistance against the occupation. Secular Sunnis in Baghdad are already saying post-election Iraq will not resemble a democracy, but a Shi'ite "elective oligarchy". Iraqis will elect 275 members of a national assembly, which will then choose a prime minister and cabinet. The most likely prime minister is Ibrahim al-Jafaari, of the Islamic Da'wa Party, arguably the most popular politician in Iraq at the moment. The assembly will write a permanent constitution, which will have to be ratified by a second general election at the end of 2005. Sistani's profound influence means that the next Iraqi government will be strongly Islamic. But there's no evidence yet to affirm it will be subordinated to strict Sharia law. Who gets the oil? The Sistani-brokered Shi'ite green (the color of Islam) electoral list, called the United Iraqi Congress, is finally out. Every major Shi'ite party is included - from Da'wa to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), from Iraqi Hezbollah (the marsh Arabs) to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement, from independents to the Iraqi National Congress of former Pentagon darling Ahmad Chalabi. Half of the list includes Shi'ite tribal chiefs who had to endure Saddam Hussein's rule on site and are not linked to any of the expatriate-infested parties. A smattering of Sunnis (such as the chief of the crucial Sunni Shamar tribe), Shi'ite Kurds and Turkmen are also on the list. {Sistiani is able to overcome ethnic divisions in Iraq by appealing to religion and being inclusive of supportive others like the Sunnis.} According to Naim al-Qaabi, one of Muqtada's lieutenants in Sadr City in Baghdad, "We will participate in the elections in a discreet fashion. Not publicly." Muqtada's movement will have 28% of the seats in the united list, the lion's share. Their official position is that "we could have had more, but we accepted to preserve the unity of Shi'ites". Our contacts, though, say that Muqtada's bargain with Sistani included the number of seats in the joint list. The three Da'wa parties - the product of a series of splits - have 10%, 8% and 4% of the seats. The SCIRI received 12%. Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani, the top Kurdish leaders, have also announced their own Kurdish list. The Turkmens have refused to be part of it. At this point there's also no evidence of any Sunni Arabs being included. Many secular Shi'ites are furious with the fact that 40% of the seats in Sistani's list were allotted to religious parties, believers in velayat al-faqih - the theory of Iran's ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of the primacy of theology over jurisprudence. Thirty-eight small secular parties threatened to abandon the list - but in the end didn't. All 50 women on the list must wear the Islamic veil: this basically means they were selected because they are conservative Shi'ites. Whatever happens, disaster looms. The Sunni Iraqi resistance's ultimate political aim is to cut off the majority of Sunnis from the US-imposed political calendar. They are succeeding because Sunnis have realized the elections will take place - whatever their complaints about their legitimacy. Iraq cannot possibly have a meaningful permanent constitution without Sunni input. For instance, if there's only one chamber in parliament, Shi'ites will always have the majority. There's also the crucial question of who gets Kirkuk and its oilfields: Sunni Arabs or Kurds? The consequences of the majority of Sunnis boycotting the election and thus being under-represented in parliament spells only one thing: civil war. {I think Pepe Escobar the writer reading it wrong. If Sistiani is driven to establish a modern Shia state he will make the necessary steps to prevent dissension. I see in this Iraqi elections the establishment of a 'modern' Shia state the first one after the establishment of Iran in the sixteenth century under the Safavids. This is crucial and important step. A Shia state is being estabisled in the Sunni heartland.} Balkanization The alternative to civil war is Balkanization. Six hundred Shi'ite delegates from the Middle Euphrates met in Najaf with plans to carve a large Shi'ite province. Iraq remains with 18 provinces - but everybody now seems to want their own province, not only the Middle Euphrates Shi'ites: the Kurds want a major Kurdish province out of six that already exist, and the Shi'ites of the deep south also want their own. Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, former national security adviser, wanted Iraq divided into five provinces: one Kurdish, two Sunnis and two Shi'ites. If this plan were ever to be carried out, the Turkmen and the Christians would also want their own provinces. A "federal", Balkanized Iraq is central to the Bush-neo-conservative project for the whole Middle East. It was discussed in Jordan in 2002, before the invasion. It would certainly create even more chaos. This is the same old British Empire "divide and rule" logic - remnant of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 which carved up the Arab nation. Northern Iraq is already a de facto separate state. Corrupt warlords such as Talabani and Barzani already have their Kurdistan: they just had to support the invasion and occupation, and never say a word to infuriate the Turks. If Kurdistan ever became a state, Turkey would have to do something lest Kurds in its own territory got similar ideas. The Americans would only tolerate a Shi'ite south split into small provinces: a major province could become an Iranian satellite. Central Iraq would in theory be a Sunni province. But any way one looks at it, it's practically impossible to carve up Iraq. In greater Baghdad there are Sunni neighborhoods, Shi'ite neighborhoods and a lot of mixed neighborhoods. The 2 million-plus Shi'ite Sadr City would be a state in itself. Arabs and Kurds would fight to their deaths for the oilfields of Kirkuk. Thanks to Saddam's Arabization policy, Kirkuk's population of roughly a million is more or less distributed among Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. The Kurds want Kirkuk as part of Kurdistan. Sunni anger, Shi'ite cunning Key Sunni cleric Abdul Salam al-Kubaysi, of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars - which has called for a boycott of the elections - told al-Jazeera television no election can be legitimate under foreign occupation. Sheikh Muhsin al-Shamari told the London-based newspaper al-Hayat that 90% of Arab sheikhs of the key Iraqi tribes want the elections to be postponed because of lack of security. Compare this with Mohammad Khatami, Iran's president, who is in favor of elections "as soon as possible". It's very important to note that Khatami has also framed the whole Iraqi equation in terms of security: this means that for Iran an elected Iraqi government at least would have a chance to provide some stability, unlike Iyad Allawi's. The problem is Sunnis immediately identified this as Iranian meddling - with some moderates even throwing Iraqi Shi'ites, Iranians and the US in the same boat. There is only one player that benefits from this amalgamation: the Sunni Iraqi resistance. Our Baghdad sources say that in Sunni mosques all over Iraq, the recurrent theme is the denunciation of Shi'ite clerics who have "sold out" Islam. Compare it with Karbala provincial Governor Sa'ad Safouk al-Masoudi, who recently said Fallujah was "a punishment from God" because the locals helped Saddam's armies destroy the Shi'ite uprising in Karbala in 1991. Al-Masoudi explicitly said that "the election doesn't depend on the Sunnis". It certainly does not: it depends on Sistani. Sistani and his circle have learned key lessons from history. When Iraq was fighting British colonialism in 1920, the vanguard of the armed resistance was Shi'ite. So the British installed the Sunnis in power - where they have remained ever since. Now the Shi'ites know that the best course of action is to co-exist with the occupier/invader, form a powerful political coalition in weeks of private negotiations uniting radicals and moderates, get their hands on power, and then tell the invader to leave. This explains Sistani's silence over Fallujah, and the Shi'ite zeal on holding elections by all means. But definitely this does not mean that Sistani is a collaborator. For the immediate future of Iraq, as crucial as the Sunni-Shi'ite power play will be the interaction between Iraqi nationalists on both sides. Sunnis were very much aware that Muqtada denounced the Fallujah offensive, and Sistani did not - or did, very mildly, and too late. Armchair planners dreaming of Balkanization tend to forget that Iraqi nationalism is much more powerful than a sectarian Sunni-Shi'ite division. {Its the civilizational memory of Iraq being the center of the Middle East through the ages. It was eclipsed only during the Ottomon centuries. Even Arabic Islam had to move from Damascus to Baghdad to becvome the legitimate poltical center.} Fallujah, an American gulag According to the International Organization on Migration, at least 210,600 Fallujans - more than 35,000 families - have been turned into refugees. Now the doomed city - reduced to a pile of rubble, but still closed by the Americans, with the resistance controlling at least 60% of it - is about to be turned into a concentration camp. This Pentagon-sponsored initiative will see Fallujans herded to "citizen processing centers", subjected to DNA testing and retina scans, and forced to wear badges with their home addresses at all times. Cars will be banned from the city: after all, they are the suicide bombers' weapon of choice. Male Fallujah civilians will be regimented in "military-style battalions" and, depending "on their skills" will "be assigned jobs in construction, waterworks or rubble-clearing platoons" - in other words, chain gangs. Moderate Sunni Arabs in Baghdad are enraged beyond belief: they correctly identify this US-enforced gulag as the "model city" in an ideal neo-conservative Middle East. Now what's that got to do with elections? {One way out is if the Shias come to power and ask the US forces to leave and reclaim sovereignity.}
What impact will a Shia state have on KSA and the Gulf countries? A historic note is that both Iran and Iraq turned majority Shia in the recent past.
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 15 2004, 05:39 PM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=39614 ROTFL.gif ROTFL.gif
Posted by: k.ram Dec 15 2004, 06:56 PM
http://www.welt.de/data/2004/11/20/363020.html EUROPE -- THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Döpfner) [Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.] A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -- your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany. laugh.gif What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness. Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary-we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy-because everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Posted by: k.ram Dec 16 2004, 03:56 AM
HIZB UT-TAHRIR: "The Mode of Operation of Hizb ut Tahrir" 03 October 2004 Exposed: Secret Zionist Report On The Hizb [From: Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) website. No title or source given. Originally published 20 February 2004 by International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Israel)] under the title "The Mode of Operation of Hizb ut Tahrir in an Open Society" by Michael Whine, Communications Director of the Community Security Trust and Director of Defence and Group Relations at the Board of Deputies of British Jews] Hizb ut Tahrir is different to other Islamist groups active in Europe and the US. It has an appeal, particularly to the intellectual, in a manner that transcends the stark appeal of the global jihad movement and its affiliates, or other Islamist or revivalist movements. [MPACUK Note: Ask yourself how many Muslim groups have ever profiled any Zionist group like this. There are over 2,000 Masjids in the UK and countless other groups yet none of them has ever had the sense to get inolved in stopping the war against Muslims. Is it time to ask them to change?] In a BBC TV Newsnight item on Hizb ut Tahrir in August 2003, a former senior member, Yamin Zakaria, stated: They had a very profound analysis of why the Islamic world is in such an abysmal state, how it declined and most importantly how we can elevate ourselves from this position, and break free. The group was not allied to any political regime, it was not operating on the basis of personal or financial motivation, it didn't have a sectarian approach. So it had a very open approach. As long as you are a Muslim and are committed to its beliefs and its causes, you are welcome to join the party. Hizb ut Tahrir involves itself less in the generalised Islamist campaigns of other groups. Its overriding belief in the resurrection of the caliphate means that all other struggles and campaigns are generally subordinated. For this it is continuously criticised by other groups. Its members do not engage in the political processes of the countries in which they live, and this has likewise led to public and private criticism of them, at least in the UK, by other Islamic groups who see it as part of their mission to press rights for Muslims. In recent years groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK), the Muslim Brotherhood - linked Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Party of Britain have voiced such criticism. The influences of the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, and the post war leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Hizb ut Tahrir founders ensures its worldview is Manichean and premised partly on conspiracy theory. All world events are seen through a prism in which the 'unbelievers' are out to destroy Islam. Like them it holds that there is a line of continuity between historical and contemporary events with no allowance for the vagaries of history or circumstance. Ideology What does Hizb ut Tahrir actually work towards and for? Its leaders and members continually stress that Hizb ut Tahrir is a 'political party whose politics is Islam', that it seeks to create a dialogue with the West on capitalism and its ills and to present Islam as an ideological alternative. The aim of the party however is to work only through the Islamic world in order to bring it back to the Islamic way of life that flourished under the Caliphate. It is not democratic: the resurrected Caliphate would be led by a non hereditary absolute leader whose appointment would be based on his knowledge of Islam and his leadership powers. It is also evangelical and seeks converts, and some of its prominent leaders in Europe have been converts, such as the Canadian Jamal Harwood. Hizb ut Tahrir continuously states that it disavows violence; that it considers the armed struggle to be forbidden by the Shariah, but it uses the language of violent jihad. The leaders admit to contacts with the Taliban but deny any contact with Al Qaeda, and indeed have publicly rejected Al Qaeda's use of force. There is clearly a lack of consistency: Hizb ut Tahrir believes that when it has achieved critical mass in any theatre where it is operating it will have to overthrow the state by means of a coup. Generally states don't roll over and submit, so violence figures somewhere in its strategy, but is generally left unexplored. Hizb ut Tahrir is opportunistic and believes in vanguardism: on a range of issues it has been the first to promote concern and has taken the lead in campaigning. But it has then, more frequently than not, dropped out of the campaign and left the issues to others. In other words it has raised Muslim concerns; has raised public consciousness and created a potential recruitment pool. It subordinates and ignores general Islamist concerns unless they represent a direct challenge to Hizb ut Tahrir or aids its opportunism. Modus Operandi Hizb ut Tahrir leaders state the model for its mode of operation in the West is that of Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) seizure of Makkah. There he sought to influence a small proportion of the citizens so that when he launched his assault he had a cadre of helpers. H izb ut Tahrir believes that it has to build cadres while engaging society in what it calls intellectual and political debate. By a collective interaction with society it aims to create awareness of Hizb ut Tahrir ideology, moving on to a consolidation of progress by soliciting support of strategically powerful groups in society (with the help of those it has penetrated). Only then is it ready to implement Islam via the resurrection of the Caliphate. In Britain, Hizb ut Tahrir appears to have gone through three distinct phases in its evolution. It came to public notice with its call to hijack aeroplanes containing Israelis and Jews and then embarked on a series of public confrontations, under the founding leadership of the Syrian expatriate and former Syrian Brotherhood member, Omar Bakri Fostock, known as Omar Bakri Mohammed, and another Syrian expatriate Farid Kassim. These included well publicised large scale conferences at Wembley Conference Centre and Trafalgar Square. It has sought to coerce moderate Muslim students into joining and has intimidated Sikh, Hindu and Jewish students. Ultimately this brought it publicity and considerable notoriety, and eventually led to its banning by the National Union of Students and by those universities where it was active. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (now Universities UK), the umbrella body for universities in Britain, was eventually persuaded to issue a guidance booklet to universities in which it condemned religious extremism and coercion. The publicity and notoriety, were enhanced by the screening of Jon Ronson's TV documentary `The Tottenham Ayatollah ` which showed Mohammed to be a buffoon, and one who was held in low esteem by other Islamist leaders as a consequence of his bragging, and because he had invited a TV camera crew to a clandestine meeting of Islamist leaders in Britain.[5] Some of them were later to emerge as jihadi recruiters. All this led in the end to the dismissal of Mohammed who left to found Al Muhajiroun, with the Saudi expatriate Mohammed al Massari. This followed the visit to London of a special envoy sent by the Hizb ut Tahrir leadership in Jordan. Muhammed took with him the majority of the members. He was replaced by Fuad Husayn in February 1996, and Hizb ut Tahrir thereafter embarked on a period of semi-clandestine recruitment and re-growth, not emerging back into the limelight until the campaign against the government of Uzbekistan and the campaign for Farhad Uzmanov, a Hizb ut Tahrir activist allegedly murdered by the Uzbek regime, during 2002. In early 2003 it began its campaign against war against Iraq. At this the focus of the Hizb ut Tahrir protestors was not on supporting Iraq, or against the war in general (which was the line of the Stop the War Coalition) but on criticism of the Arab states for assisting the US. The third period has been that under the leadership of Dr Imran Waheed, a Birmingham-based psychiatrist, Dr Abdul Wahid, and others. Hizb ut Tahrir now operates at two levels: clandestinely, recruiting mostly among students, and to a small extent on the street (but not as much as previously); and via its communications modes, such as its web - based journal Khilafah and its communiqués. It has also, but only during the past eighteen months or so, returned to street activity, via pickets and demonstrations. Command and Control Much like the clandestine Marxist Leninist groups on which it is partly modelled Hizb ut Tahrir exercises strict centralised command and control, which is manifest through its system of recruitment and communications. Hizb ut Tahrir operates in the manner of a cult. Now that it is barred from many mosques its main vehicle for recruitment is via Islamic or Study Circles. These meet at members' homes or community centres and generally involve five or so aspirant members meeting regularly under the supervision of an experienced member. An indoctrination period usually lasts for up to two years, at which point the member is accepted i nto the organisation. Although its members are secretive, Hizb ut Tahrir leaders deny this. Senior members' and correspondents' email addresses are listed in Khilafah, and Waheed and other leaders actively seek media interviews. In the Newsnight item, a student active in the Islamic society at Kingston University talked about a Hizb ut Tahrir activist, Rizwan Khaliq, who was not a student at the university. Khaliq nevertheless visited the campus almost daily to recruit students. The interviewer asked the former head of the Islamic society what their relationship was, and he answered that it is one of tolerance: neither interfered with each other. When asked why he did not denounce Khaliq to the university authorities, knowing that Hizb ut Tahrir is banned, he responded that they would not inform on a fellow Muslim to the Kafir. The university authorities issued a statement that they had no knowledge of Khaliq's activities. There is evidence of Khaliq's attempting to recruit in other universities clandestinely, and where moderate Muslim students see no need to speak out or are either unwilling or frightened of informing. Where it does venture out into the open, for example to book rooms or to hold meetings Hizb ut Tahrir frequently uses false names, among them: The Islamic Society, the Islamic Front, the International Islamic Front, the Islamic Forum Against Communism, Al Khilafah Publications, the Young Liberating Party, Asian Youth (Waltham Forest), the 1924 Committee, the Muslim Media Forum (University College London), Muslim Current Affairs Society (Leeds University), the New World Society (Nottingham and Sheffield universities). Hizb ut Tahrir uses the Internet for promotion of its ideology, and email and face-to-face meetings for command and control. Communiqués and press releases published by the group are all published in the same format and with the same type of wording. The Danish police investigation into the affiliate noted that the Danish website wa sn't only being hosted from London but that it was being run from London and that it was registered to the Hizb ut Tahrir mailing address in London, which is that of the British affiliate. The address is that of a commercial post restante, and in fact is the second post restante they have used, having changed to the current one a year or so ago. All the communiqués are published from London. Thus for example press releases published in June and July 2003 by the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sudanese and British affiliates were all in the same format, style and layout. The first three dealt with the suppression of Hizb ut Tahrir affiliates in those countries. Communiqués published last June by the Turkish affiliate and on behalf of the Russian affiliate following arrests of Hizb ut Tahrir members in these countries are again in the same format and style. In November 2002 the German authorities, who had long had Hizb ut Tahrir members under surveillance, raided twenty-five buildings across the country but made no arrests. Interestingly, the Interior Minster Otto Schily, stated that they had not been able to to find recognizable organisational structures. He stated that: `We have to assume that essentially they have their organisational base abroad.' The UK is undoubtedly where the command and control centre is, even if the international leadership is elsewhere. Spread Initially, Hizb ut Tahrir sought to recruit only among students. Its leaflets were first distributed in the UK, and the rest of Europe to the best of our knowledge, at Imperial College London University. That may have been a deliberate strategic target for the group, or it may just have been a reflection of where its membership was located. Imperial College is one of the foremost institutes for scientific learning in Britain, on a par for example with Cambridge. It then spread to Queen Mary College and thereafter to Birmingham, both located in areas with large Muslim populations. Thereafter it emba rked on a campaign of recruiting students elsewhere and Muslim youth on the streets and its members appeared to spend much of their time leafleting. In an interesting posting to an Islamist - discussion group last September and reproduced by MPACUK, an anonymous correspondent writes on `Why I left Hizb ut Tahrir.' He stated: `All I seemed to be doing was pamphleteering and daubing walls with posters and memorising the odd ayat of the Quran to pull out on unsuspecting Muslims to prove my point.' In a note of cynicism he concluded that: If you don't want the establishment of the Islamic state then the best way is to join up with one of these two groups. ..... In closing I am thankful to Hizb ut Tahrir for at least awakening me to my deen even though they did very little to nurture it. I have had a few friends "burn out " from Hizb ut Tahrir and go back completely to their jahiliyya state and this can be blamed on no one else but Hizb ut Tahrir who will be questioned on That Day. Hizb ut Tahrir came to public notice again in April 1988 when it's activists inserted a leaflet inside copies of the Arabic language journal Al Fajr which at that time was distributed freely outside the Central London Mosque. The leaflet, in English, was entitled `The Islamic Rule on Hijacking Aeroplanes' and was written by the then leader Abdul Qadeem Zallum. In it he claimed that the hijacking of planes was forbidden in Islamic law unless the plane contained Israelis or Jews, in which case there was an obligation to hijack the plane and kill the Jews. Other leaflets followed and were given out on the streets or on university campuses. They included one entitled `the only place is the battlefield between the Muslims and the Jews' and another entitled `Peace with Israel - a crime against Islam.' It has been Hizb ut Tahrir's publicly stated policies on Hindus, Sikhs and particularly Jews that as much as anything else has brought them criticism and into conflict with law enforcement. In January 1994 two Hizb ut Tahrir members were arrested for distributing the `Peace with Israel - A Crime against Islam' leaflet. The leaflet advertised a meeting to be held at University College London and was referred to the Attorney General on the grounds that it incited hatred and was illegal. The Attorney General, whose consent is required for prosecutions under the law against incitement, declined to prosecute but the university authorities cancelled the meeting. It took place however at another college of London University, t he School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) where the Hizb ut Tahrir speaker stated: `Let's be open about this - the Quran does not mention Zionists, it mentions Jews. They are our enemy and insha'allah (with the help of Allah) we will finish them'. In January 2001 the German authorities also banned Hizb ut Tahrir on the basis that it was `active in universities with anti-Semitic slogans and was inciting hatred against Jews and had called for the destruction of the state of Israel' under legislation that allows for the proscription of foreign-based extremist groups. Interestingly, Schily also stated that Hizb ut Tahrir in Germany had sought contact with the far right and that leading neo-Nazis had attended a Hizb ut Tahrir meeting held by the group at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002.13 There are other examples of meetings between Hizb ut Tahrir and the far right, but this is not the norm. It was also noted that the German leader Shaker Asssem had lectured at the Islamic study group founded by Mohamed Atta at the Technical University in Hamburg during the summer of 2001. In November 2002 members' homes were again raided, causing the group to issue a denial that it was seeking violence, but noting that the banning would not stop its activities. In 2002 Danish Hizb ut Tahrir produced a `hit list' of fifteen to twenty leading members of Denmark's Jewish community. In November 2002 Fadi Abdel Latif, the leader of the Danish branch was convicted of incitement to racial hatred and sentenced to sixty days in prison after the group circulated a leaflet urging people to `Kill them, kill the Jews wherever you find them'. The group was subsequently banned. The Dutch government is also now said to be considering a ban. Last November the German police arrested a group of North Africans linked to European - based terror cells. One of those arrested, Abderazek Mahdjoub (aka Mahjub Abderrazak), was picked up in Hamburg and is allegedly li nked to the Ansar al Islam network, reportedly told his interrogators that there had been a meeting of Hizb ut Tahrir European leaders in Poland. There they had taken the decision to completely change and to build a new organisation that concerns itself `with the national territory and with the international territory but we need highly trained people at every level' It is alleged that he stated that Hizb ut Tahrir has `Albanians, Swiss, British...It is enough that they be of a high cultural level. In Germany we have interpreters and interpreters that translate books ; we have also in communications, also in Austria; the important thing is that their faith in Islam be sincere.' When questioned about the situation in Germany, Mahdjoub replied `I cannot complain. There are 10 of us; we are taking an interest in Belgium, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey and Egypt, Italy and France, but the nerve centre is still London.......Shaykh Adlen has given a great deal of money; as I told you this plan has no need of any further comments or words.' Unlike the violent jihadist groups Hizb ut Tahrir does not now recruit on the streets or in the prisons. It is worth noting that an attempt to recruit among Birmingham street gangs involved in the local drugs scene and prostitution failed due, it was thought, to the recruits inability to properly comprehend and promote the intellectual ideology.18 A way to assess which way an Islamist group may be moving is to look at its recruitment policies. Is it like Al Qaeda recruiting the disenchanted from the streets or in the prisons? Hizb ut Tahrir went someway down that road but has now reverted to recruiting in the universities. Look at the backgrounds of its leaders and known members Hizb ut Tahrir is not a populist movement like the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist movements. It is elitist and its clear strategy since the accession of Waheed to the leadership has been to recruit among elites. In fact its message can only appeal to elites, and that is why it tended to fail when it tried to recruit on the streets. A high proportion of its declared membership are medical doctors or other professionals. The line up of speakers at a recent public event, the sixth national conference held in Birmingham in August 2003, under the banner of `British or Muslim?' included: • Dr Abdul Salaam, a married dentist in general practice from Chicago and former follower of Elijah Mohammed and Malcolm X, who left their successor Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam fifteen years ago. • Waleed Gubbara a sales and marketing director married with two children. • Taji Mustafa an IT engineer who is married with three children and who was a co-founder of a major independent Islamic day school. • Kamal Abu Zahra an Arabic translator with graduate and post graduate degrees who is married with three children. • Shaban ul-Haqq, an IT project manager with graduate and post graduate degrees in computing.[19] By advertising the professional and family backgrounds of the speakers it is clear that they are aiming to attract similar people: mature professionals with families. The meeting held at the prestigious National Indoor Arena in Birmingham would have been expensive to book and likewise suggests that they are focussed on a different class of potential recruits and members than previously. The local press reports that the meeting attracted 7000 participants and that Imran Waheed and the main speaker Abdul Salaam used the opportunity to `dissuade Muslims from taking up arms against Israel arguing that that they do not advocate the `indiscriminate killing of Jews', but rather the seizure of power through peaceful means. However a senior member of the group Sajjad Khan also stated that `there needs to be an international Islamic army, from Muslim states, across the world, to take back the state of Israel and even go into Iraq to wrest control of the region from the US.' To appeal to established people Hizb ut Tahrir now also promotes a more progressive line on family issues than other Islamists and one which is designed to appeal to educated elites. They are, for instance, against arranged and intra-family marriages. Their literature differs markedly from that produced during the time of Omar Bakri Mohammed. It is high quality and sometimes expensively produced literature, published in full colour. The regular web-based journal Khilafah is well designed with high resolution scanned images. This is intended to be attractive to the class of prospective converts they seek. However, the move towards more web-based printing also avoids involvement with the external world, and potential exposure. Assessment That Hizb ut Tahrir is subversive is obvious: the strategy and activities are aimed at influencing and subverting society and leading elements within it. In the UK, at least, it appears to have aimed for the professional classes although these are the only members who are declared. It is not yet known what other areas of society they may have infiltrated, but as their message is so different and indeed nuanced from other Islamist groups, it is unlikely that they will have made much progress. Despite their use of jihadi terminology and the fact that they play a part in radicalising Muslim youth there is no evidence that Hizb ut Tahrir is involved in or encourages terrorism in Western Europe, or that it is moving towards terrorism. There have been no reports that members have joined or become involved in Al Qaeda or the global jihad movement. Hizb ut Tahrir members are not thought to have joined the Taliban, nor is it believed that any are being held at Camp Xray. Likewise, Hizb ut Tahrir is not mentioned in connection with al Tawhid or Ansar al Islam, nor any of the other wahabi or salafi terror groups. However, members did go to Bosnia during the mid 1990's and indeed Ahmed Sheikh Omar is thought to have been a Hizb ut Tahrir member when he went to Bosnia via the Convoy of Mercy. But any terrorist recruitment appears to have been done there, or in Afghanistan rather than in the UK. In Germany it was initially banned because it is antisemitic and because it represented a subversive threat to democracy, and the German constitution and laws enacted since 9/11 allow for the proscription of those that threaten the integrity of the state. It was banned in Denmark because it published a document which threatened the country's Jewish leadership, and the same appears to be the case in Holland. In Britain the UK law does not allow for the possibility of banning subversive organisations: only those that aid or abet terrorism, so a ban is unlikely. While Hizb ut Tahrir's views are so extreme it is unlikely that it will ever achieve mass popularity, and they will continue to be criticised by other Muslim groups, even thos e that are Islamist. In a totalitarian society, where there is no political opposition, Hizb ut Tahrir will seek to occupy the vacuum thus left. It will thereby be seen as both subversive and possibly terrorist. However it seems unlikely, on the evidence, that it would engage in terrorism, and there is no credible evidence that this has been the case in Uzbekistan or Egypt. In reality Hizb ut Tahrir represents a long-term threat of subversion. It is a gradualist ideology and although it has generally failed to confront the reality of its ultimate aim, that of the violent overthrow of the established order, its elitist recruitment policies are unlikely to allow it to achieve its mission. NOTES --1. Hizb ut-Tahrir, Newsnight, BBC News, 27 August 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-1/hi /programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm, downloaded 2 September 2003 --2. See for example, The Hand of Hizb in the UK writes to MPAC, email from politics@m..., 17 January 2003, American Elections and Hizb ut-Tahrir , Dr M Amir Ali, MSA News, 2 November 2000, or How to Stop the War Decisively (Answering Hizb ut-Tahrir) Yamin Zakaria (ex-member of Hizb ut Tahrir) and Dr Mohammad al-Massari (ex-member of Hizb ut Tahrir), The Revival, 7 February 2003, www.therevival.co.uk --3. Iraq's Sunni Muslim group confirms Taleban contacts, denies Al-Qa'idah links, Al-Hayat, London in Arabic, 7 February 2004, source BBC Monitoring. --4. Extremism and intolerance on campus, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, July 1998. --5. The Tottenham Ayatollah, Channel 4 TV, 8 April 1997 --6. Rulers of Muslims Stand up to the West - Support the Muslims of Iraq, Close Your Waterways, Airspace and Ground Bases, 15 March 2003 --7. Newsnight. Press release, To suppress Hizb ut-Tahrir's stance on Kashmir, its member has been abducted, Naveed Butt, 22 June 2003, www.1924.org/press_releases/index.php ?id=558_0_8_0.m --8. See for example: Press release - arrests, Ali Sa'eed Ali (Abul-Hasan), The official spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Sudan 9 July 2003, www.1924.org/press_releases/index.php ?id=586_0_8_0_C, downloaded 10 July 2003; Hizb ut-Tahrir Bangladesh, 20 June 2003, www.1924.org/press_releases/index.php ?id=548_0_8_C; Political analysis - Sharon's visit to Britain, 16 July 2003, www.1924.org/political_analysis/index.php ?id=606_0_22_0_C, downloaded 17 July 2003 --9. O Muslims in Turkey!, Communiqué, uploaded 11 June 2003; Communiqué from Hizb ut-Tahrir, uploaded 22 June 2003, www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/ category.php?DocumentID=7584&TagID=I, downloaded 23 June 2003 1--0. Germany Bans Islamic Group Accused of Anti-Semitism, Associated Press, 15 January 2003 --11. Why I left Hizb ut-Tahrir, www.mpacuk.org/mpac/data/ee3eeb8f/ee3eeb8f.jsp, downloaded 18 September 2003 --12. The Islamic Rule in Hijacking Aeroplanes, 8 April 1988, insert with Al-Fajr, no.12 April 1988 --13. Peter Finn, Germany Bans Islamic Group, Washington Post Foreign Service, 10 January 2003; Germany Bans Islamic Group Accused of Anti-Semitism. Associated Press, 15 January 2003 --14. Peter Finn --15. Danish Muslim jailed, Jewish Chronicle, 8 November 2002 --16. Private sources --17. Private sources --18. Conversation with West Midlands Police, 30 October 1996 --19. Conference Schedule, British or Muslim?, national conference organised by Hizb ut Tahrir, 22 August 2003, www.conference.1924.org/images /posters/Inside_v.3.jpg --20. Emma Pinch, Muslim leader's mission of peace, Birmingham Post, 25 August 2003 http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=515 http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/42/
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 16 2004, 12:55 PM
Hmm how many days before this 'think' tank will start babbling about kashmir, gujarat, oppressed muslims of india and such ??? http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=10929
QUOTE
This week saw the formal initiation in London of a major international think tank, Conflicts Forum, dedicated to forging a new and healthier relationship between the West and the world of Islam. A second start is to follow in Beirut in the week of Dec. 12-18, when a founder of the forum will explain its aims to the Arab media and will hold meetings with representatives of Islamic groups, including Hizbullah and Hamas. The creation of Conflicts Forum is a development of major importance because it is the first systematic attempt by a new Western institution to challenge the view propagated by Washington neoconservatives that the West is engaged in a life-and-death struggle with militant Islam. Ever since the terrorist attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001, right-wing officials and lobbyists in the United States, several of them close to Ariel Sharon's Likud Party in Israel, have sought to demonize Islam and portray it as a deadly threat to Western societies. These views were embraced at the highest level in the U.S., and to some extent in Britain as well, where the notion took hold that, for the West to be secure, militant Muslim groups had to be destroyed and Muslim societies had to be reformed, if necessary by force. The decision to wage war in Iraq followed a global manhunt in pursuit of anyone suspected of sympathy for the cause of militant Islam. The same attitude inspires the current U.S. campaign of seeking to impose democracy on the Arab world in order to "defeat terror." The conflict between the U.S. and a worldwide Islamic insurgency has become the most explosive issue in the world today. The Middle East arena has become the epicenter of the world crisis. Almost every day brings news of a violent clash somewhere, whether the assault a week ago by Al-Qaeda gunmen on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, the destruction by U.S. forces of Fallujah, or the murder by an Islamic radical of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the author of a provocative film on the treatment of women in Islam. His killing set off a wave of attacks on mosques in Holland. Across Europe, not only in Holland but also in Germany and France, there is evidence that the integration of Muslim immigrants has not always been successful and has led to severe tensions, sharpened by Israel's brutal repression of the Palestinians and by the war in Iraq. Because it was waged on the basis of false premises, the Iraq war has aroused tremendous controversy in many parts of the world - including inside the intelligence and diplomatic services of Britain and the U.S. In recent months, senior retired officials have sharply criticized the Middle East policies of their governments. In London last week, an eminent group of nearly 40 ambassadors, military commanders and senior politicians sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair urging him to set up an official enquiry into the claim - made in October by the medical journal The Lancet - that the Iraq war has caused the death of up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The founders of Conflicts Forum denounce the "climate of fear" promoted by Washington neoconservatives. Rebelling against official Western orthodoxy that perceives Islamism as a hostile ideology, they have set themselves the ambitious task of promoting a "new engagement" with Islam based on dialogue, mutual respect and tolerance. Alastair Crooke, one of the forum's founders, is a former British diplomat and Middle East expert, who among many other posts served as special security adviser to Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief. He coordinated negotiations and mediation between all the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict, establishing valuable personal contacts. "We need to demonstrate," he declares, "that there is an alternative relationship between the West and Islam other than one defined by laying waste of Fallujah!" Conflicts Forum is, in effect, a club of disaffected diplomats and intelligence officers, who have been joined by prominent figures from the fields of politics, business, academia and religion. The forum has raised funds from charitable foundations, companies, individual donors and governments. It is planning a major fund-raising drive in the United States in the new year and appeals to Muslim movements and governments to support its campaign for a "new engagement" between the West and Islam. Conflicts Forum has set up a separate but linked body called Conflicts Forum Consultancy (CFC) to provide selected clients with strategic analysis of world problems and political risks. Through an international network of contacts and offices, CFC is present in several world capitals. Over the past year, it has held meetings with the European Union, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. State Department, the National Security Council, as well as several international organizations. It has also briefed Western and Arab diplomatic missions in London, Brussels and Washington. The message Conflicts Forum is seeking to propagate may be summed up in a few simple propositions: The worsening estrangement between the West and Islam is a source of grave concern; This estrangement has brought suffering to Muslims in many parts of the world and has also damaged Western societies by severe restrictions on civil liberties; Muslim values pose no threat to Western societies. In fact, Muslims overwhelmingly share a desire for free elections, popular participation and effective, noncorrupt government; Caught in their ideological straitjacket, Western governments cannot remedy the situation. Ordinary people must act and speak out for themselves in support of dialogue and of a "listening" between peoples; A basic belief of the founders of Conflicts Forum is the need to recognize the "other" and change the ways in which the West engages with the Muslim world; With this in mind, the forum is undertaking a study of the various currents in political Islam and plans to share its findings with Western policymakers and the public. A more controversial aspect of the Forum's approach is what it describes as the need to stimulate a rigorous understanding in the West of the causes and varied nature of "armed political action" by Islamic groups and to distinguish this from what is usually labeled as "terrorism." The Forum believes it is a fundamental mistake to label Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and seek to isolate them - as the European Union has done under American and Israeli pressure. On the contrary, Conflicts Forum argues that it is essential to bring these groups into the political process and, in the Palestinian case, to include them in the leadership of the national movement. Swimming against the current is never easy. The coming year will demonstrate whether Conflicts Forum can convince the public, the press and the policymakers that a new Western perception of Islam is not only possible but urgently necessary. Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 17 2004, 03:02 PM
User Parsuram has posted this on sulekha.. http://www.sulekha.com/news/ThreadComment.aspx?cid=526286
QUOTE
Jihad against Italy By the mid 7th century, after overrunning North Africa, the Arab Muslims turned their attention towards the North Mediterranean coast in an effort to invade the Byzantine Empire from the West. By then the Arabs, who already controlled the North African coast and Spain, considered Sicily a highly strategic step for their expansion towards the north of Italy and an advance into Europe. The Arabs who had started developing pretensions to becoming a naval power, sent a fleet to Sicily and conquered the undefended fortress of Palermo in Sicily in 830. With Sicily as a base they started harassing the mercantile shipping in the Mediterranean, and more importantly they tried repeatedly to invade Italy from Sicily. The Battle of Palermo The Christian resistance began immediately to recapture the island of Sicily. The Franks tried to take back the island in the 7th century, but failed. By the 11th century, the baton of resistance to the Saracens was taken up by the Normans. The Normans undertook an attempt to liberate Sicily by sending in an expeditionary assault in 1068 with just sixty knights, but with their shock tactics, they gave a stunning blow to the Arab chieftain Ayub ibn Temim at the Battle of Misilmeri (then called by the Arabs Menzil el Emir), outside Palermo. This was followed by the main Norman assault in 1071, when they attacked and defeated the Arabs at Palermo. This fortress whose very name derived from the Arab Balarm - defines its origins as an Arab city. Palermo, when it was an Arab emirate for five hundred years, was described as "the city of the 300 mosques, very few of which survive today, with most of them having been converted into Churches. The Battle of Palermo stands as one of the most astounding Norman escapades in Italy against the Muslims. It rivals the Battle of Hastings (1066) in importance. Socially, the Normans' occupation of Arab Palermo was far more significant than their conquest of Saxon London, as it brought Sicily back into the European orbit, a development which eventually established an Italianate presence in the central Mediterranean. The Normans had taken Messina during an early morning battle in Spring 1061. In the ten years since, they had sought to consolidate their control of Sicily and the southern part of the Italian Peninsula, fighting the Arabs in a string of skirmishes. At Palermo, the Arabs were again led by their wily and intrepid commander Ayub ibn Temim and the Normans by a young and energetic leader named Robert Guiscard de Hauteville and his younger brother, Roger de Hauteville. But the Normans with their conquests in other parts of Europe, notably England , where they fought the battle of hasting in 1066 and defeated the Saxons, were chronically short of trained knights. (Indeed, it would be years following the Battle of Palermo before they could wrest back control of Enna, from the Muslims. Enna had been an Arab-Muslim stronghold in east-central Sicily In 1072 Palermo had something over a hundred thousand residents. On the morning of 5 January, Robert's cavalry attacked the al Kasr district (high ground near what became the cathedral, Piazza Vittoria and the Norman Palace). Fighting was fierce, and penetrating the walls seemed like an impossible feat. Leaving his brother, Roger, to maintain the attack on al Kasr, Robert and some knights attacked al Khalesa, the administrative district on the coast, built around the emir's fortress. This was taken by nightfall, though most of the adjacent al Kasr district, further inland, remained in Saracen hands. Nevertheless, a Saracen delegation surrendered to the Normans the following morning. Specifically, the Normans first entered al Khalesa over a wall near what is now the Spasimo. (In a corner of this structure the vestiges of a eight-century Mosque that the Normans changed into a church. The traces of this change can be seen even today.) The ceremonial entry of the Norman Christians into Palermo took place on 10 January, with a Greek Rite mass celebrated by the Orthodox bishop Nicodemus of Palermo in the old cathedral (on the site of the present one), hastily re-converted into a church from its use as a mosque. Here was a historic juncture where Robert and Roger chose to defy convention and their own Christian tradition. All mosques that had been churches (before the Arabs' arrival two centuries earlier) were re-converted into Churches. With the conquest of Palermo, the Normans had liberated only a part of Sicily, the rest of the island still lay under Arab occupation. But in spite of the Norman attack, the Arabs in Sicily were divided, and taking advantage of the situation, Count Roger, after a series of campaigns, subdued the rest of the island and brought it under Norman Rule. Count Roger also invaded other islands to make sure his southern flank was secure from a possible Arab attack, having reduced the Arabs to a state of vassalage and releasing the foreign Christian slaves, he returned to Sicily without even bothering to garrison his prize. In 1127, Roger II the son of Count Roger, led a second invasion of Malta; having overrun the Island he placed it under a more secure Norman domination under the charge of a Norman governor. He also garrisoned with Norman soldiers the three castles then on the islands. From about this period the Maltese moved back gradually into the European orbit to which they had belonged for a five hundred years prior to the Arab interlude. Lessons from the Battle of Palermo Sicily had been under Muslim occupation for nearly three centuries from 812 up to 1071. the population had been wholly converted to Islam, and there was not a single church left standing. They had either been reduced to rubble or had been converted into Mosques. When the Normans retook Sicily, they reversed history in equal measure and with equal ruthlessness. After the Norman liberation, there were no Muslim left in Sicily, Malta, Sardina and any other surrounding islands that had been under Muslim occupation. This ensured that the population forgot about the Islamic interlude. The Norman acted as an exorcist to exorcize the influence of Islam on the population and returned the lands to Christendom. The Battle of Lepanto Although Sicily was never directly threatened again, the shadow of the Islamic Jihad loomed once again when the Ottoman Turks started moving into the Mediterranean after 1500. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the prospect of the conquest of Europe was reignited in Muslim hearts. This prospect had been defeated at Poitiers, Palermo and had been rolled back by the Reconquista in Spain. The Ottomans now moved toward Malta which had remained a peaceful Christian bastion for four more centuries after its liberation by the Normans in 1127. In the meanwhile Malta had become the base for the Crusader knights of Malta and it played an important role as a transit point for the crusaders to go to the holy land. Malta was a marked fortress for the Muslims who bided their time to seek revenge when they could again come within striking distance. And so it s if to prove the point, the Turks launched two attacks against the island in 1547, and again in 1551, 1565 till they were finally routed decisively at the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. The Turks had a policy of ravaging the Maltese countryside they ignored the fortified towns, and turned their attention to the island of Gozo and carried away the entire Christian population into slavery, the children being brought up as Muslims who were to be thrown into battle as suicide warriors named Janissaries (from Jan = life and Nisar = given away). That same year the Turks drove the Knights out of Tripoli. these attacks stung the Knights into feverish activity to improve the islands' defenses in anticipation of another, and possibly bigger, attack. On the 18th May, 1565, the Ottoman Turks and their allies pitted 48,000 of their best troops against the islands with the intention of invading them, and afterwards to make a thrust into Southern Europe by way of Sicily and Italy. Against them were drawn up some 8,000 men: 540 Knights; 4,000 Maltese; and the rest made up of Spanish and Italian mercenaries. Landing unopposed, the first objective of the Turks was to secure a safe anchorage for their large invasion fleet, and with that in mind, launched their attack on St.Elmo. After a heroic resistance of thirty one days the fort succumbed to the massive bombardment and continuous attacks of the Turks. After the fort had been reduced, the Ottomans turned their to the two badly fortified towns overlooking the harbour. Subjected to a ceaseless bombardment, and repulsing attack; behind the crumbling walls, the Christian forces, against all odds, kept the enemy at bay until a small relief force of some 8,000 troops arrived from Sicily (a smaller relief force of 600 men had previously landed at about the time that St.Elmo had fallen). Totally demoralized, as the Turks were, by losses from disease, fire and steel, added to the fact that their supplies were running low, they were in no position to offer an effective resistance, and the Turks retreated never again to attempt another invasion in that part of the Mediterranean. In 1571, Don John of Austria commanding the fleet of the Holy League, met the Ottoman Turks in the waters at the mouth of the Gulf of Patros. Don John of Austria met his fleet off Messina and saw that he had 300 ships, great and small, under his command. The Pope himself had outfitted twelve galleys and the depth of his war chest had paid for many more. Don John's eye must have gazed with pride on the 80 galleys and 22 other ships that had been provided by his half-brother Philip II of Spain. Each of these Spanish galleys held a hundred soldiers on top of the rowers who propelled the ship through the water and no less than 30,000 men in the service of Spain would fight at Lepanto. The next largest contingent was that of Venice. Thought they were no longer the dominating power of yesteryear, the Venetians could still assemble a fleet of more than a hundred vessels beneath the winged Lion of St. Mark standard. provided the technological cutting edge that was to win the battle. The Turkish fleet under the command of Ali Pasha had been reinforced by a Calabrian traitor fisherman who had turned Moslem. His name was Uluch Ali and he was now the Bey of Algiers, that notorious nest of the Muslim corsairs feared by all Christian ships plying their trade in the Mediterranean. Don John moved his force towards the anchorage of Lepanto where he knew the Turks to be waiting and during the night of October 6th, with a favourable wind behind him, Ali Pasha moved his fleet westward towards the mouth of the Gulf of Patras and the approaching ships of the Holy League. The action that was to follow was the biggest naval engagement anywhere on the globe till then. The Turks, initially arrayed in a giant crescent-shaped formation, quickly separated into three sections also. The centre, under Ali Pasha, pushed forward and the action opened when the cannon of Don John's two centre galleasses (gunships) began to do great execution among Ali Pasha's advancing ships. Seven or more Turkish galleys went down almost immediately as a result of the longer range of the Christian fleet. The Turks were not lacking in courage, however, and they pressed on in the face of intense fire from the galleasses, the galleys' guns and crossbowmen on the Christian decks. Ali Pasha tried to come alongside the Christian ships in the hope of boarding and here the legendary steadfastness under fire of the 16th and 17th century Spanish infantryman came to the fore and attack after attack was beaten off by killing shots from their guns and engaging in hand to hand combat by the Spanish swordsmen. Then Don John gave the order to board Ali Pasha's flagship. In a wild melee of attack, retreat and counterattack played out on decks awash with the blood of the slain, the air rent by the screams of the wounded and dying the Spaniards forced their way onto the Turkish galley three times. Twice they were beaten back but finally they stormed the Turkish poop and a wounded Ali Pasha was beheaded on the spot. His head was spitted on a pike and held aloft for all the Turkish fleet to see and the Ottoman battle flag, never before lost in battle, was pulled down from the mainmast. The Muslim centre broke and retired as best it could, their courage forgotten in face of the grisly sight of their admirals head held aloft by the elated Spaniards. Lessons of the Battle of Lepanto The Christians had now learnt their lessons. It was a battle to death for both sides. Negotiations were never on the agenda. The options were fight, flight or death. The first mistake made by Rodrigo in Spain when he faced the first Muslim Jihad in 711, he had tried to walk his out by negotiating his freedom, only to be betrayed and having his head sawed off to be paraded before the demoralized Spanish army at the Battle of the Guadalete river between the Muslims and the Spaniards. In this case the Christians never forgot nor forgave the Muslims. And so mercy was a quality not much in vogue any longer in the wars between the crescent and the cross. The Christians were quick to learn the tactics of foul warfare from the Muslims and turn their new earning against a ruthless adversary. Apart from the bravery of soldiers on both sides, the tactic that clinched victory was the gruesome act of beheading of the Turkish Admiral Ali Pasha and his deputy Uluch Ali. These were unchristian and uncivilized practices, but it was the Muslim who had introduced them into Europe, and the Christians were quick to learn and use them against the Muslims. The engagement at Lepanto had lasted for more than four hours and when the smoke finally cleared it became apparent that this was a major victory for the Holy League and a bitter defeat for the Ottoman Turks. Almost 8,000 of the men who had sailed with Don John were dead and another 16,000 wounded. On the brighter side 12,000 Christian galley slaves had been released from their servitude to the Ottomans. The Turks and Uluch Ali's Algerines had suffered much more grievously. Of the three hundred and thirty Turkish ships , fewer than fifty managed to escape and most of them were burned because they could not be made sufficiently seaworthy for further use; one hundred and seventeen Muslim galleys were captured intact and the rest were sunk or destroyed after they had been run ashore by the fleeing Turks. A large majority of the seventy-five thousand men who had entered the battle on the Muslim side were killed, five thousand were taken prisoner (with at least teice that number of Christian galley slaves liberated), and only a few were able to escape either by ship or by swimming ashore. Turkey, for the first time in several centuries , was left without a navy The day belonged to Don John, the Holy League and Christendom. When the news of the victory broke, church bells were rung all over in Europe in a spontaneous outburst of joy and thanksgiving. The victory at Lepanto, put paid any further Turkish adventure to invade Italy by sea. More so it left the European powers without any formidable rival on the seas, paving the way for aggressive and bolder forays by the European maritime powers to sail across all the oceans and establish colonies in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia. The Jihad had a penultimate break at Lepanto, the final one was to come a century later at Vienna in 1683, that put paid all attempts of the Muslims to overrun Europe. Muslim rule was thenceforth confined to the south eastern corner of Europe in the Balkans where the seed of Islam was not uprooted when the Christians liberated those lands between 1850 and 1920. Modern liberalism had set the lethargy in motion a lethargy that came to roost at Mostar and other cities in the Balkans which saw the slaughter by the Muslims and Christians of each other. Howsoever ideal may liberalism be, it is of no value when dealing with the blood-thirsty Muslims. This is the lesson which the Serbs and Croats learnt in the 1990s. But these being Christian lands originally, it was the Muslim who were the occupiers and even if we forget the concept of anyone being an occupier, since the world belongs to all humans, with their beastlike behavior, the Muslims became unwelcome citizens wherever they lived, with whomsoever they lived. The quarreled and fought with everyone, and when there were no non-Muslims around they fought among themselves. Such is the warlike legacy that Islam has given the modern age. But the overarching relevance of the Battles of Palermo and Lepanto was that they saved the Italian mainland from a Muslim invasion and so also indirectly the Islamization of Europe when there was no power strong enough in Central Europe in the 10th to the 15th centuries to resist a successful Muslim onslaught.
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 20 2004, 10:25 PM
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=39820
Posted by: Krishna Dec 21 2004, 12:38 AM
QUOTE (rajesh_g @ Dec 20 2004, 11:25 PM)
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=39820
WTF is this? What's next?? Another demand for a separate muslim country?? or a bunch of tiny ones, all over India?? secularism ki..................
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 21 2004, 03:20 PM
http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=49155
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 22 2004, 12:36 PM
http://islam-online.net/English/News/2004-12/22/article03.shtml
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 22 2004, 03:47 PM
http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/23/stories/2004122304562000.htm
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 23 2004, 11:09 AM
Ah so this is "Islam Hadhari" ?? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FL23Ae01.html
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 27 2004, 06:12 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1415741,00.html
Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 29 2004, 03:25 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,15568,1362591,00.html
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Dec 30 2004, 12:53 AM
There are some striking aspects of the different armies of Islam field in course of the 14 centuries of Jihad against the Kaffrs and Dhimmis. The first army of Islam, that of the Arabs, met with rapid somewhat surprising success. It ran through the Sassanian empire in no time and then expanded rapid in the East towards India, in the North East towards Central Asia, the West towards the Christian Roman empire and south towards Africa. The Sassanians fell completely and rather rapidly in Iran to the Islamic Jihad. The campaigns of Abu Muslim and Qutaiba ibn Muslim in central Asia were also widely successful. In the battle of River Talas the Arabs met with a great success against the Chinese army. In Palestine they were successful against the Christian Roman empire (Byzantines). In North Africa they devasted the Christian and pagan states and then invaded Spain and Portugal and conquered huge swaths of Christian southern Europe. Against the Hindus in India they met with considerable success in the Sindh province. 632: Pagans of Arabia destroyed and the Arabian peninsula is conquered. 637: The Moslems seized Syria from the Christian Byzantines and drove them out of the Middle East. 638: Palestine is seized from the Christians. 641: Egypt is taken. 649: Arab navy defeats Christians to take Cyprus. 651: Iran is completely defeated and conquered after 15 years of fighting. 714: Central Asia- Sogdhiana and Transoxiana is conquered by the Islamic Jihad after 10 years of savage attacks. 711: Conquest of North Africa completed. 712: Arabs defeat the Hindu armies in Sindh and conquer parts of it. 715: Southern Europe- Spain and Portugal are taken after the Christian Goths are defeated. 751: The Chinese Army is defeated in the battle of Talas This period of 120 years can be considered the period of true success of the Arabic Army of Islam. The Jihad of the Arabs was wildly successful in this period regularly defeating armies of most of the major civilizations of the old world. This string of successes against very different adverseries is actually pretty surprising because after this the Arabs more or less underwent a stagnation and faded out as a military military power of note. After their intial string of spectacular successes their attempts their thrusts were blunted in most directions by several defeats. In Europe, the Franks stopped the Islamic advance in the famed battle of Tours. Byzantium withstood all further attacks despite the siege of the capital by Caliph Sulaiman. In India the Karkotakas, Chahamanas, Pratiharas and Chalukyas repeatedly repulsed many Arab attempts and prevented any further depredations on India. In Central Asia the last remnants of the Gok Turks and later the Uighur Khanate defeated the Arabs and prevented any further encroachment. These defeats are as striking as the initial expansions, especially given that after that the Arabs ceased to be a major military force. We speculate that the initial Arab success was actually a remarkable combination of chance events that resulted in many of the great civilization of the Old World going through a simultaneous trough that allowed the Arabs to explode unhindered in all directions. But soon there after the Arabs had spread themselves thin and started facing counter-pressure from all sides. As a result they slowly faded away but the meme of Islam had infected a large number of native populations who later feed the new rounds of the Jihads. One of the most important of the people who were infected by the meme of Islam were the Altaic peoples, who were later to out do the Arabs in disemminating Islam. The other major set of people infected by the meme of Islam who have been dominant its rampages of recent time are the ex-Hindus of great India. The lesson to be learnt from this for the modern situation is that the power centers of Islam may be destroyed but the Islamic meme can continue to infect and build up new armies for new Jihads, especially coupled with the rapid reproduction. The Jihad in greater India is run by locals infected by the meme. Europe will be an interesting situation to watch out for the spread of the meme.
Posted by: PC Guleria Dec 30 2004, 11:54 AM
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/581/581p18.htm Do you really think that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat created by US imperialism because it needed an enemy following the collapse of the Soviet Union? In all the Muslim countries, with few exceptions, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism was aided by the US either directly or indirectly. In no way did Islamic fundamentalism become a big force without US support. In Egypt, [former President] Anwar Sadat used the Islamic fundamentalists to unleash a reign of terror against secular and radical forces. In Pakistan, General Zia did exactly the same. In Saudi Arabia we have a Wahabite monarchy supported by the US. Not to mention Afghanistan, where the US supported the religious jihad, leaving aside whether the Soviet intervention was right or wrong. I myself opposed the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. I predicted that [it] would create a mess that would take decades to clean up. To answer your question, I think the US helped in a big way to spread Islamic fundamentalism during the Cold War. Look at, for instance, Israel. [Palestinian resistance group] Hamas was encouraged by the Israeli regime to push the Palestine Liberation Organisation back; to push people like [Yasser] Arafat and [former leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] George Habash back; to push all the secular Palestinian leaders back. This is not our problem. This was created by [the US] and we are suffering from its consequences. Don’t you think the seeds of anti-imperialism were already present in the Islamic fundamentalist movement before the Cold War — shown, for example, by the attack on US bases in Lebanon? The Lebanese experience is very different. The organisation Hezbollah came out of the Islamic revolution in Iran and had always declared publicly its aim of driving Israel out of Lebanon. That was a popular slogan. However, even the mullahs of Iran backed the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, Jamat-i-Islami of Pakistan supported the US in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. I don’t believe [the Islamic forces] have been anti-imperialist. A real fight against US imperialism can only be waged in favour and on behalf of the agenda of emancipation. What fundamentalists want to do is to go back to 9th century Islam, which they do not understand correctly either. With the collapse of the communist and secular forces, only the religious parties were left to act as anti-imperialists.
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 30 2004, 03:27 PM
While the west did fan islamism for dealing with the soviets Islamism already existed from the days of the prophet who was the first islamist
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 30 2004, 03:32 PM
The viral approach to dealing with islam As far as viral diseases go, the treatment is purely symptomatic from AIDS to the common cold Even some bacterial diseases like cholera the treatment is symptomatic Unlike the romantic idealists I dont believe that re-education of muslims in large numbers is a practical proposition From Jinnah to Osama, all are well educated The main threat is the internal muslim, not the external muslim Most muslims are pre-Jihadist, meaning until they reach critical demographic concentration, they are tame The key then is a mechanical demographic dilution of society As Sudhir Luxman Hendre said, Have 5 or be islamised
Posted by: Nalwa Dec 31 2004, 10:18 AM
G.Subramaniam, I know you have been advancing strong arguments to support your hypothesis around combatting muslim fundamentalism in India by increasing Hindu birth rates. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. The Hindu is increasingly materialistic, and aspires to a better economic future. It has been ingrained in the Hindu, that a smaller family will be an integral part of the "success" formula. 5 decades, and thousands of crores have gone into creating that mind-set. Only the naive will believe that hindu's and sikhs will go back to the 4-5 child norm, which was fairly common place until the 1950's. And we know you are not naive. On the other hand you are one of the learned scholars who frequents this forum. I would therefore ask you to take this element into account, and suggest some other measures - in addition. Off-course, some Hindu's will heed this demographic warning and increase birth rates. But we should not count on that as the only means of neutering the islamic threat. The current turmoil in the world is actually a great opportunity, and in my view, will eventually lead to the destruction of militant islam. Muslims have to be forced to re-interpret islam so it is more accepting of co-existence - or be faced with anhilation. Unfortunately a substantial percentage of the Hindu's and Sikhs of India have proved their immaturity/idiocy by embracing pseudo-secular values which give solace to the muslim fundu. If this is not reversed, the battle will take longer and be bloodier - but eventually the outcome will be the same. The destruction of militant islam.
Posted by: Nalwa Dec 31 2004, 12:24 PM
Here is an article by Balbir Punj, which describes the dhimmi attitude of many so called secular fundamentalists: They will try their damndest to destroy indic civil;ization - but will be destroyed themselves. Read on and let your blood boil.: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=punj%2Fpunj52%2Etxt&writer=punj Sir, my secular answer to the honourable member is that where it is in the hands of Allah, we turn to Allah, where it is in the hands of man, we turn to man." Thus spoke Mani Shankar Aiyar while answering a supplementary in the Rajya Sabha on December 21, 2004. So it was self-proclaimed "secularist fundamentalist" invoking Allah's help to solve the mundane problems his Government is finding difficult to solve. Let me explain the context. His party colleague and Rajya Sabha member Rajiv Shukla had put a question to Mr Aiyar on the (un)availability of natural gas, and the Minister enumerated a list of disappointments in response. When Mr Shukla said that finding gas was also part of the Minister's problem and he couldn't evade his obligation, Mr Aiyar startled everybody with his philosophic reply. "We have to look to Allah to give us the gas, and we are looking for that." He perhaps figuratively meant that India was looking towards "Allah's own" Arab countries. Soon, however, our minister proved his use of Allah was not casual. When I asked him on the floor of the House, whether he would invoke the help of Allah to solve LPG crisis as well, that was in ample supply during NDA's rule, Mr Aiyar observed the main question was about CNG but nonetheless came with his above-mentioned "secular" answer. This could fare as a very sincere reply from a simple-minded Muslim, whose faith in Allah and His revelation, Quran, is complete and unshakable. But what to do when a self-confessed atheist and proclaimed "secular fundamentalist" leaves his ministerial obligation to Allah? The return of the Congress-led Government in May, as everybody knows, has brought back scarcity in LPG supply. This is leading to black-marketing of cylinders. From foodgrains to imported electronic gadgets the black-market system has flourished all through Congress's "socialist" era. There was little reason to distrust the party when one of its campaign ads said, "Wahi purane din ab phir wapas ayenge" (those days will be back). Indeed, those days were of scarcity, shortages, rationing, queues, delays and licensing. So from your local gas agency to passport office, where things moved swiftly in the BJP's days, old days are back again! Looking towards Khuda (Persian name for God) would have been more appropriate, poetically and factually. It is well publicised that currently we are looking towards Iran for gas. In fact, we are trying to circumvent Allah in Pakistan fearing that Iran-India pipeline across that country might be strategically risky and subject to hefty transit fees (Male-e-Ghanimat?). To window dress its apprehension, India is telling Pakistan that the pipeline could be built only if overall economic ties improved between New Delhi and Islamabad. But those beloved people of Allah, who are never tired of telling that no trade, cultural or scientific cooperation interests them till "core issue" of Kashmir was resolved, now say that the project itself could boost relations. Recently former Pakistani cricketer turned politician Imran Khan had invited Bollywood actor Amir Khan to raise funds for a cancer hospital in Lahore, named after his late mother Shaukat Khanum. But Imran came under fire from radicals in Pakistan for whom wresting Kashmir through Mujahideeni Jihad was more important than finding money to fight cancer. When Imran visited Punjab University in Lahore to speak on the subject of Kashmir, he was voraciously criticised for belittling "Pakistaniyat" by inviting an Indian celebrity to raise funds. This proves that for a section of Muslims, the cause of their religion is above everything else - whether it is fighting cancer that kills fellow Muslims, or Indo-Pak amity in which we rejoice so much. I can't claim they were wrong because I am no authority on Islam. However, I feel they place their views cogently and honestly even in academic campuses that in our county are bastions of "secular" Leftism. Contrarily, Mr Aiyar in his recently published book, Confessions of Secular Fundamentalist (Viking-Penguin), has admitted that he himself is an atheist (though he does not impose it on others) and a crusader for "secularism" that entails strict separation of law and religion. But I wonder how an atheist secularist in the legislature twice look towards Allah for oil when he looks towards Gandhi and Nehru for political model. Mr Aiyar's modest book, I found, is a mammoth exercise in secularism. He has defended his "secularism" from historical, constitutional, legal, political, social angles. But, alas, all his advices are reserved for Hindus, and he has explanations, right or wrong for every problem emanating from Muslims. To him the mosque saddled on Kashi Vishwanath Mandir is the greatest symbol of communal coexistence. Only inaugurating a renovated Somnath is communal (according to Nehru) because it affected Muslim sensibilities! That way, IPC warrants a change because the rapist and the raped had also co-existed as also the killer and the murdered. So Allah is "secular" in the same way that Arafat is his hero (and Israel the demon!). But think what would have happened if someone had looked towards "Ram". Mohammed Ali, the alter ego of Mahatma Gandhi during Khilafat and Non Cooperation Movement spoke his mind clearly in a speech at Aligarh in 1924: "However pure Mr Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character. This statement created a great stir, recalls Babasaheb Ambedkar in his book Pakistan or Partition of India, and many did not believe that Mohammed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Gandhi, was capable of uttering such contemptuous statement about him. But in another meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, Mohammed Ali owned the statement without hesitation or compunction, adding further: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr Gandhi." (Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol 8, p 302). The Sultan of Brunei once said that Allah had given riches of gas only to Muslims. Objectively speaking, it might not be true, because countries like Venezuela and Russia too have oil and gas. But truly, Muslim countries whether in Arabia or out of it like Nigeria, Bangladesh, or Brunei are resourceful in petroleum and natural gas. In fact, petroleum has acted turbo-booster for propagation of Wahabi radicalism throughout the world. Oil-rich Arab countries have no other resources of their own - certainly not skilled human resources. And had it not been for oil, these countries would have been still living in the seventh century. King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, under Wahabi influence, used oil as a weapon by imposing embargo on Western countries after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Israel was on the verge of winning it. Saudi Arabia and Libya have pushed in trillions of petro-dollar in religious teaching or terrorist activities in different countries. But for King Faisal or Muammar El Gaddafi, faith in Allah is genuine and complete. It is not strategic like Mr Aiyar's, who plays to the gallery with Allah but otherwise says he is an atheist. Gaddafi in 1969 had threatened to take over American oil refineries that were doing booming business in Libya during King Idris's rule. The American companies sarcastically asked him what alternative he would be left with except for drinking the crude if they quit Libya. "We would go back," said Gaddafi unhesitatingly, "to the days of living on date palms and camel milk." He was so enamoured to go back to the Prophet's days in the seventh century. I would prefer to hear about Allah from Gaddafi than from Mr Aiyar.
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 31 2004, 02:30 PM
Only the naive will believe that hindu's and sikhs will go back to the 4-5 child norm, which was fairly common place until the 1950's. And we know you are not naive. On the other hand you are one of the learned scholars who frequents this forum. ---- Thats why I call for a major VHP effort to raise fertility This mindset reversal will take a major effort and should be considered as part of the hindu awakening In fact Shri Togadia has already started on a low key, a counter-breeding campaign -- I also consider the bumbling neocons as highly useful As they attack islamic country after another, jihadis will be flushed out and destroyed Several thousand freelance jihadis are now going to Iraq instead of Kashmir and in iraq without the interfering human rights scumbags they are dispatched to the 72 virgins G.S
Posted by: Krishna Dec 31 2004, 03:30 PM
Indian muslims should be encouraged to go and fight for the palestinians, chechnyans and also in Iraq.
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 31 2004, 03:44 PM
Every year by natural causes, 1.5 million Indian muslims die Hence in the big picture, things like Gujurat are not an issue Even if you ship off the wannabe jihadis to jihads in Chechnya or other places it will only take care of 5000 wannabe jihadis The relentless logic of numbers and the speed of reproduction makes it imperative that islam be contained by counter demographics
Posted by: Viren Jan 3 2005, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Krishna @ Dec 31 2004, 06:30 PM)
Indian muslims should be encouraged to go and fight for the palestinians, chechnyans and also in Iraq.
If you read Tom Friedman, Indian muslims who have really succeed in a kafir land are source of envy for rest of muslims the world. Handful of bigots like Mani Shankar under the guise of 'secularism' are bent on keeping this 'muslims are oppressed around the world' mindset alive because it pays rich dividends at the ballot. Note in Nalwa's like as to how Mani Shankar is turning to Allah for oil. Wonder who he'll turn to for water as in coming decades water and not oil will define the new parameters of conflict around the globe.
Posted by: Viren Jan 4 2005, 09:13 AM
http://sify.com/news/othernews/fullstory.php?id=13642236 Vice-President of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, Maulana Kalbe Sadiq says there is nothing anti-Islamic about family planning, banning the triple talaq as ground for divorce, allowing Muslim women to divorce or allowing Muslim women to offer Namaz in mosques.
Posted by: acharya Jan 4 2005, 10:29 AM
QUOTE
I also consider the bumbling neocons as highly useful As they attack islamic country after another, jihadis will be flushed out and destroyed Several thousand freelance jihadis are now going to Iraq instead of Kashmir and in iraq without the interfering human rights scumbags they are dispatched to the 72 virgins G.S
I knew somebody would think clearly on this smile.gif
Posted by: Mudy Jan 4 2005, 10:58 AM
Quote from The Crisis of Islam - Bernard Lewis
QUOTE
Meanwhile, there is a more urgent problem. If the leaders of Al-Qaida can persuade the world of Islam to accept their views and their leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, not only for America. Europe, more particularly Western Europe, is now home to a large rapidly Muslim community, and many Europeans are beginning to see its presence as a problem, for some even a threat. Sooner or later, Al-Qaida and related groups will clash with other neighbors of Islam-Russia, China, India - who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sancitities. If the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in their war, then a dark future awaits world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam.
GS,
QUOTE
I also consider the bumbling neocons as highly useful
Agree with you.
 




<< Home

ARCHIVES
November 2003 / December 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 /


Powered by Blogger