18 Sep 2008
Wait only for five minutes from now! Wait for the Mujahideen and Fidayeen of Islam who will make you feel the terror of Jihad. And stop them if you can. Feel the havoc cast into your hearts by Allah, the Almighty, face His Dreadful Punishment, and suffer the results of fighting the Muslims and the Mujahideen. Await the anguish, agony, sorrow and pain. Await, only for five minutes, to feel the fear of death. ”Within minutes of this e-mail finding its way into media computers, the jihadi bombs in Ahmedabad blew to smithereens over 50 persons. By the time terror hit Ahmedabad, such e-mails had become the pattern. The mails came ahead of the blasts in Jaipur and Bengaluru earlier. Also now in
See how, in its Ahmedabad mail, the jihadi outfit unveils its Islamic agenda against the Hindus — read
“O Hindus!... Haven’t you still realised that the falsehood of your 33-crore mud idols and the blasphemy of your deaf, dumb, mute and naked idols of Ram,
“Know that it is only the true confession of the Oneness of Allah Alone,with no associates, that can save your blood from being spilled on the streets of your own cities. We call you, O Hindus, O enemies of Allah, to take an honest stance with yourselves lest another attack of Ibn-e-Qasim sends shivers down your spines, lest another Ghauri shakes your foundations, and lest another Ghaznawi massacres you, proving your blood to be the cheapest of all mankind! Have you forgotten your history full of subjugation, humiliation, and insult? Or do you want us to repeat it again? Take heed before it is too late!”
The IM goes further, quotes the most fundamental document, the Quran, to validate its theological stand. “Yes! We — the terrorists of India — The Indian Mujahideen, the militia of Islam whose each and every mujahid belongs to this very soil of India — have returned, to execute the compulsion of Allah: “Fight them (the disbelievers), Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and give you victory over them and He will heal the hearts of those who believe.” (Quran 9:14). It goes on to quote: “Fight those disbelievers who are near you and let them find harshness in you.” (Quran 9: 123). “Go forth light armed or heavy armed and fight with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah.”[(Quran 9: 41). So the IM claim is simply this: we are doing what the Quran commands us to do against the non-believers, namely those who do not believe in Islam.
The jihadis have openly challenged the pure Islamic theologians to deny that the position it takes against the Hindus is not the position of pure Islam. No Islamic theological school, not a single mullah or maulvi has shown the guts to tell the jihadis that non-believers in Quran do not mean non- Muslims. The Islamist scholars have kept deafening silence. The jihadis have thus effectively shut the Islamists’ mouth by quotes from the holy Quran.
But what about the secularists? The terrorists are misguided youths, angered by the Hindu outfits in
Do the secularists have the guts to ask the Islamic scholars to come out and deny that the theological position of Islam is not what the terrorists claim it to be? But, not surprisingly, not a single secular media or editor, nor any political party or leader would dare ask why the Islamic theologians are silent on the terrorists’ view of the holy book. What has their grievance against Hindu outfits or the governments to do with their claim that Islam mandates them to attack non-Muslims? The real issue is whether the Islamic faith mandates so. If the jihadis are aggrieved then they can take to violence against the state. Terrorism normally isolates the terrorists from mainstream society.
But when the terrorists claim that they have been directed by their holy text to kill people of other faiths and that view is not challenged by the mainstream scholars or the secularists, then the terrorists cannot be isolated. This is what the secularists seem to have preferred to miss out.
Thus neither have the mainstream Islamic scholars challenged the jihadis’ view that their holy text authorises them to kill the non-believers nor have the secularists asked mainstream Islamic scholars to deny the terrorists’ version of the Islamic faith. Emboldened the terrorists have now moved a step further in the
This secular largesse did not assuage the extremists. Instead it has put the Islamist terror on an escalator. Not surprisingly the jihadis have, in the
Source: Indian Express
Source: Indian Express
Hate is found in the heart, not in texts
25 Sep 2008 03:18:00 AM IST
ROLLOVER Archimedes and you, too, Isaac Newton! Here comes
Gurumurthy need not have waited for these monsters to surface. He could have as easily have plucked the same verses, and some more, from the innumerable ‘Hate Islam’ websites years ago. I could cite them here but why burden a man already consumed by hate? Instead, here are some Quranic verses that say the exact opposite of those that Gurumurthy loves. “If they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them” (4.09). “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors” (2.19).
“Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice” (6.08).
In short, Allah forbids Muslims from war except in self-defence.
Here again are a few sayings of Prophet Mohammed. “Those in whose heart is not mercy for others will not attain the mercy of Allah”; “Power consists in not being able to strike another, but in being able to control oneself when anger arises”; “A perfect Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands mankind is safe”. “He will not enter paradise whose neighbour is not safe from his wrongful conduct”; “The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr”.
On May 31 this year, five lakh Muslims from all over
There they raised hands and took an ‘Oath of Allegiance’: “We fully support the declaration of this ‘Anti-Terrorism Global Peace Conference’ of the Jamiatul Ulama-i-Hind and other organisations.
We are bound by the fatwa of Darul Uloom, Deoband and undertake that we shall condemn terrorism and spread Islam’s message of global peace.” Be it 9/11, 7/7 (UK), the Beslan massacre, the Bali bombings, the Madrid blasts, after each such barbaric event, I could cite fatwas from the highest Islamic authorities from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Indonesia, US, UK, Spain.
So which is the ‘real’ Islam? That of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, SIMI and IM, all of whom together add up to but a minuscule, albeit lethal, number of the 1.4 billion Muslims? Or of Muslim religious leaders in
How can Lord Krishna’s sermon to Arjuna that to fight and kill was his dharma be called the “greatest spiritual gospel”? Sri Aurodbindo: “We will use only soul force and never destroy by war or any even defensive employment of physical violence? Good, though until soul force is effective, the Asuric force in men and nations tramples down, breaks, slaughters, burns, pollutes, as we see it doing today, but then at its ease and unhindered, and you have perhaps caused as much destruction of life by your abstinence as others by resort to violence.” As for those who might see Vishnu’s incarnation as a “God of War,” here’s a commentary you could access from http://www.hinduwisdom.info/ Hindu_Scriptures.htm: “Lord Krishna, after failing to convince him that it is the duty of a warrior to fight in a righteous war, reveals himself to Arjuna and answers his questions on the nature of the universe, the way to God and the meaning of duty.
“This magnificent dialogue between man (Arjuna) and Creator (
No holy text preaches hate. But as the history of all religions shows, if we harbour it in our hearts, we can read hate in any sacred text we like: Bible, Quran or the Gita.
Javed Anand is co-editor Communalism Combat and general secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy.
26 Sep 2008 12:51:00 AM IST
“GURUMURTHY need not have waited for these monsters to surface. He could have as easily plucked the same verses and some more from the innumerable ‘Hate Islam’ websites years ago. But why burden a man already consumed by hate.” These unfortunate remarks of Javed Anand, in his response to my article on ‘The Holy Text and Terror’ shows how anger has got better of the reason in him.
What he sees hate in me is what, as I explain here, I see as the concern in me for both Muslims and
Javed Anand reduces my article to two propositions. First, “Injustice minus theology cannot breed deadly terror” and second, “Muslims are terrorists because theology (Quran) commands them to kill.” He is right on the first and wrong, even malicious, on the second. He has not rebutted what I had said, which is okay; but he has accused me by saying,‘ Muslims are terrorists’, which I cannot ignore. I quote here the central concern of my article. “So the IM (terrorists) claim is simply this: we are doing what the Quran commands us to do against the non-believers, namely those who do not believe in Islam. The jihadis have openly challenged the pure Islamic theologians to deny that the position it takes against the Hindus is not the position of pure Islam. No Islamic theological school, not a single mullah or maulvi has shown the guts to tell the jihadis that non-believers in Quran do not mean non-Muslims. The Islamist scholars have kept deafening silence. The jihadis have thus effectively shut the Islamists’ mouth by quotes from the holy Quran.” The core of my concern — yes, it is concern, not hate as Javed Anand says in anger — is what is stated in bold letters.
And this is precisely what Javed Anand side steps. Every time, anywhere, they strike, the terrorists — whichever Islamic group they belong to — invariably claim that they are targeting the ‘non-believers’. And every time they claim so, the Islamic theologians issue a standard statement that ‘Islam does not countenance terror against innocent people’ and it is a ‘religion of peace’. It is true that the Jamiat-ul Ulama-i-Hind and other organisations held the ‘Anti-terrorism Global Peace Conference’ at Deoband.
It is commendable that a large gathering of Muslims at the Ramlila Maidan in
Nevertheless it is a great move in the national, and Muslim, interest. But the move is in no small measure due to the increasing crescendo of the globally led debate about whether Islam supports acts of the terrorists as they claim. This debate has been started in
Now let us examine the fatwa against terror issued from Dar-ul-uloom Deoband which Javed Anand sees as the Islamic theological counter to the terrorists’ claim of theological support. The conference defined terrorism as: “Any action that targets innocents, whether by an individual or by any government and its agencies or by a private organisation constitutes an act of terrorism.” It also said, “Terrorism negates completely the teachings of Islam as it is the faith of love and peace and any terrorist activity which targets innocent people directly contradicts Islam’s concept of peace.” And finally, it said, “We reject all forms of terrorism and do not allow any discrimination. Terrorism is a completely wrong and unthoughtful act whoever commits, irrespective of his association to whatever religion, community and class he belongs to.” Can one fail to notice the qualification of “innocent people” attached to the fatwa in the already abstract move. So “Targeting to kill the innocent people” is alone terror according to the fatwa. If the terrorists target those who are not innocent — normally the police, army personnel or others, while they are sleeping or eating, fall in this category — is that not terror? Let not this side issue, though significant, detain us. Now, on to the core issue.
The core element of the terrorists’ claim is, as I have said in my article and emphasised it here earlier, this: they are commanded by the holy text to kill the ‘non-believers’. The question is who are non-believers? It needs no seer to say that, for the terrorists, non-believers are those who do not believe in Islam. This is what attracts even highly educated techies and motivates them to turn terrorists in the cause of Islam against non-believers — read non-Muslims. This is the theological magnet for mobilisation.
This is what Deoband has not rebutted.
It has not said, nor has any other Islamic School, that ‘don’t read non-believers in the Quran as non-Muslims’. If the Islamic clergy declares that “non-believers does not mean non-Muslims” and issues a fatwa against those who consider non-Muslims as non-believers, then, and only then, the terrorists cannot use theology as a magnet to attract the Muslim youth kill the non-believers! That the terrorists make use of Islamic theology for their actions cannot be denied, and has not been. Why then do the Islamic scholars not openly declare that ‘non-believers do not mean non-Muslims’? But they seem to find it difficult.
Here is my personal experience of their difficulty. In the late 1990s, a well-meaning social worker from
After some silence a very prominent Muslim leader declared that Hindus were, as per Islam, non-believers. While a majority howled him down, a theologian came to his rescue, though in a convoluted manner. This is the theological gap in the Islamic discourse. The terrorists are exploiting it. A clear statement from Islamic schools that the ‘nonbelievers’ does not mean ‘non-Muslims’ in Islam will fill the gap. The Islamic theologians seem to avoid a confrontation with the terrorists on this point. This is what my article points out, and this is what Javed Anand misses or side steps. It is clear that Javed, the Muslim, not Javed Anand, the secularist has dominated the response. Anyway he should have read my article once more, before responding.
QED: When angry, don’t write.
War on terror sorely needs a war of ideas
New Indian Express/Centrestage Sunday Column
October 5, 2008
By Javed Anand
No honest thinking person can deny that a sickness called terrorism has seized the minds of a small minority of Muslim across the world. And we only have to think of
Terrorism is a serious Indian and global concern today that calls for intense public discussion and debate. Only thus can the nature of the beast be recognised for what it is and ways of taming it fathomed. A one-word contribution to this debate – denial – is no contribution at all. Worse, the refusal to address this ugly reality tends to blur the boundary between the mass murderers and the community in whose name they claim to act.
At the same time, to trace the roots of terrorism in the holy text, to a few verses of the Quran, is to bark up the wrong tree. You can order dozens of books online today or access hundreds of scholarly articles, mostly by non-Muslims, that will tell you that terrorism in the name of Islam is no 1,400-years-old malaise. As both a product and a reaction to modernity, terrorism as we know it is a current, not ancient, phenomenon.
In his book, Terror and Liberalism, written post 9/11, the noted American political and cultural critic, Paul Berman, observes: “The terror war is nothing new or unprecedented. It is the same battle that tore apart
It is being claimed that there is an easy solution to the problem of Muslim terrorists. Since “the terrorists… use theology as a magnet to attract the Muslim youth to kill non-believers”, all the ulema need to do but for some curious reason are not doing is to issue fatwas that the expression “non-believers” in the Quran does not mean “non-Muslims”. The remedy suggested is tantalising in its simplicity. But, alas, it can produce no magic potion as the Justice Munir Commission discovered during its probe into the causes behind the extremely violent anti-Ahmeddiya movement in
As part of his investigation, Justice Munir summoned the top clerics heading over half-a-dozen Muslim religious bodies to depose before the commission. From the answers that he received on their definition of a Muslim, Justice Munir was forced to the conclusion: “If we adopt the definition given by any of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim (singular of ulema) but kafirs (non-believers) according to the definition of every one else”!
If one set of Muslims treats another set as “non-Muslims”, what chance of any fatwa resolving the problem? The Quran certainly does not treat Christians and Jews, both of whom are considered descendents of Prophet Abraham just as Muslims are. If Christians and Jews and even fellow Muslims are in the crosshairs of terrorists, of what use any clarification on what the Quran really means by “non-believers”?
Why not try, as so many non-Muslim and Muslim scholars and theologians have been doing, and locate the spring-source of a modern day problem within our own space-time matrix? Why not zero-in, as others have done, on the three Muslims whose warped doctrines cumulatively sowed the theosophical terrain for terror in the latter half of the twentieth century: Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, an eighteenth century evangelist from the Arabian peninsula, Maulana Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami on the Indian sub-continent and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt’s Ikhwan-ul Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood)?
Before Maududi and Qutb, jihad (literally “struggle”) in the Islamic tradition was a word with multi-meanings; the struggle against one’s baser self was considered Jihad Akbar, the highest form of jihad. “The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr,” said Prophet Mohammed. But in the middle of the twentieth century, Maududi and Qutb after him fore-grounded jihad, gave it a radical new meaning, converting jihad and shahadat (martyrdom) into a revolutionary doctrine. Read V.I. Lenin’s What is to be done? (1902), the foundational document of the Bolshevik Party, Maududi’s Jihad fi Sabilillah (Struggle in the cause of Allah, 1939) and Qutb’s Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones, 1964) together and you’ll find the latter two importing ideas from the very West that both abhor and producing a new Islamic theology.
For Maududi and for Qutb, Islam is not a religion like others limited merely to religious rites and rituals. For Maududi, Islam is “a revolutionary ideology”, Muslim means the “International Revolutionary Party” mandated to carry out the “revolutionary programme” and jihad means “that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Nation/Party brings into play in order to achieve this objective... to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule… The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution”.
To reach his revolutionary goal Maududi seemed content with aggressive propaganda: “This party does not attack the home of the opposing party, but launches an assault on the principles of the opponent”. But Qutb, the “philosopher of Islamic terror” for Berman, pushed the envelope further.
Maududi who died in 1979 never made much headway in
After his execution some of Qutb’s followers moved to
“The terrorists speak insanely of deep (philosophical) things. The anti-terrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things”, wrote Berman in an article in The New York Times in 2003. He argued that not for the first time the values of liberal democracies are under fierce attack and the “war on terror” couldn’t be won without a “war of ideas”. This war of ideas involves us all today, believers and non-believers alike. And what we are confronted with are not a few verses from the Quran or their interpretation but the killer cocktail produced by the coalescence of Wahhabi, Maududi and Qutbi doctrines.
Javed Anand is co-editor Communalism Combat and general secretary Muslims for Secular Democracy).
IS 3:17 "The Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:53:00 PM
KI 1:1-4 David was old, and although covered with clothes, could not get warm. A beautiful, young virgin is brought in to be his concubine and nurse. But alas, he was so old and infirm that he "knew her not."KI 11:3 Solomon (the wisest man ever) had 700 wives and 300 concubines.KI 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."KI 18:27, IS 36:12 (KJV) "... eat their own dung and drink their own piss." (Note: Although correctly translated according to the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, piss and pisseth have been re-translated to something more "godly" in all versions since the KJV.)CH 11:21 Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines.ES 2:2-17 King Ahasuerus holds a sexual contest with "fair young virgins" to pick a new Queen (after having been spurned by Queen Vashti).PR 5:19 (KJV) "... Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:50:00 PM
SA 19:24 "And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night." SA 3:7 (KJV) "Wherefore hast thou gone in unto [a euphemism for sexual intercourse] my fathers concubine?" SA 5:13, 20:3 David had many concubines.SA 6:14, 16, 20-23 David dances and exposes himself to his maids. (His wife, Michal rebukes him for having done so, and as a consequence she is made barren.)SA 12:11-12 The Lord is going to punish David for his sin by taking his wives and causing his neighbor to have sexual relations with them in public.SA 13:1-14 King David's son, Amnon, rapes his half-sister, Tamar.SA 16:22 Absalom "went into his father's concubines" in the sight of all Israel.
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:49:00 PM
NU 31:17-18 "... all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Note: How did they determine which girls were virgins, and what did they do with them after they kept them alive for themselves? This is not a pretty picture.)NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty of which thirty-two are set aside as a tribute for the Lord. DT 21:10-14 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go. DT 23:1 (KJV) "He that is wounded in the stones [testicles], or hath his privy member [penis] cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be.
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:46:00 PM
JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:45:00 PM
GE 24:2-9, 47:29 "... put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord ...." (Note: This means "put your hand under my testicles," which is the manner in which oaths were taken at the time; "testament," "testify," and "testicle" have the same root.).GE 29:16-30 Jacob marries both Leah and her sister Rachel. He has children by both Leah and Rachel's maid Bilhah, but Rachel remains barren. Due apparently to Rachel's generosity to her husband, the Lord eventually allows Rachel to conceive. GE 35:22 (KJV) "Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his fathers concubine." GE 38:9 Onan "spills his seed" on the ground rather than fulfill his obligation to his widowed sister-in-law to father a child by her. GE 38:13-19 Tamar plays the role of a harlot in order to have sexual intercourse with her father-in-law. She conceives and twins are born. GE 39:7-23 The wife of Joseph's master tries to get Joseph to go to bed with her. He refuses, and flees leaving his "garment in her hand
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:43:00 PM
Maybe Pinot likes to emulate
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 1:40:00 PM
SCB, you are lost in your own imaginary world. Short sighted and dim-witted with a very bitter heart. You can wallow in your own misery. As for
10/7/2008 8:51:00 AM
blah )no doubt Paul considered you sheep) how much did the archbishop pay maoist to say that? It is also amply clear that Naxalites are now funded by the church.
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 7:16:00 AM
Nowhere did Krishna claim I will lift your skirt and expose to nations your shame nor did he claim the earth was flat and 64 miles square as that dimwit self proclaimed myth called Jesus's father the lecher claimed.Nor did Krishna have his Song of Solomon. If Jesus was born of immaculate conception how is it he is called the seed of David the lecher who used to be Mohd's predecessor in raping and looting?
By Subhas Chandra Bose
10/7/2008 7:14:00 AM