Showing posts with label islamofascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islamofascism. Show all posts

Friday, March 6, 2009

Germany slammed for not boycotting Durban II; Britain recognizes Hizballah as a political party

The more things change, the more they stay the same!
 
It seems that Germany has decided to not follow Obama's lead in boycotting Durban II, despite the fact that not only will the conference be an antisemitic hate fest, it also will seek to criticize criticism of Islam (and thus is anti-free speech).  Not good.  Any legitimacy given to this illegitimate and anti-humanity exercise is a bad thing.
 
 
And in other news, it appears that Britain is going to recognize Hizballah and 'negotiate' with it.
 
 
Please remember that Hizballah is a Final Solution terrorist group, whose leader, Nasrallah, literally said "If all Jews were to gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."  Sadly, these are not just words, as Hizballah has attacked Jews as far away as Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Hizballah also bombed US Marines in 1983, killing over 300 of our brave young men and women.  They are actively fighting US and British soldiers in Iraq, and are building up a massive arsenal in the South of Lebanon, in order to continue its war against Israel.  Last year, Hizballah set up a 'tent city' in Beirut, and got a power sharing part of the Lebanese governement via its brute force.  Right now, Lebanon is jointly ruled by the relatively secular Faoud Seniora, and by the Final Solution Hizballah.
 
Essentially, Hizballah is like the modern Nazi party, without having achieved the results yet of the Nazi party, despite their best hopes otherwise.  They have explicitly stated their goal is the worldwide annihilation of every Jew on earth, and they air disgusting propoganda such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and scenes from a Passover "blood libel" (i.e., showcasing Jews eating the blood of Arab babies, mixed with Passover matzos), on Al-Manar TV, in order to brainwash Lebanese citizens into desiring genocide. (this is similar to what was done in Nazi Germany)  I would say Al Manar is easily as bad or worse as anything that has come out of Nazi Germany, based upon the numerous MEMRI clips I have seen over the years. (and I do not exaggerate when I say that)
 
The fact that Britain now is recognizing Hizballah as a legitimate "political party" to be negotiated with is so beyond repugnant, it defies description.
 
I only hope that things will improve in the future.  It is soon to be Shabbat, and I hope you have a good weekend!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

What is the Target?

In the past few weeks I have argued that people must stop labeling Islam as evil, and to just focus on the issues at hand. This meant, I said, talking directly about Sharia and preventing its spread.

Clearly Sharia (and other Fascist Islamic Supremacist tools) are linked to Islam, however I believe that I can separate the two. Furthermore, I believe that by separating the foundations and constructs of Islam from the broad label "Islam" it will A) protect Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia on us and B) be more effective at combating the spread Islamism.

I will explain further by quoting from a couple of conversations I have had in the last week.

You [Aka. Me!] claim saying 'anti-Shariaization' is better than saying 'anti-Islamization'.

Why is it better?

Robert Spencer would probably say that you cannot be a devout Muslim and NOT want Sharia to rule over everyone.

If the foundations [Sharia law etc.] are the same as the building itself [Islam]... maybe there is no difference.

I replied as follows:

I may agree with Robert Spencer there - but I don't need to discuss Islam.

Specifically fighting Sharia law will affect Islam, but it will not harm any Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia law on our societies.

It's the difference between being against Judaism, or being against Halacha.

If someone was anti-Judaism you would be defensive.

If they were anti-Halacha, you could more easily shrug your shoulders.

I think we should fight Sharia on the specifics of what the law actually represents. Muslims can debate the theology themselves.

I believe this would be vastly more successful than the anti-Islam positions that most anti-Sharia groups are propagating.

On a previous occasion I also wrote:

I am sure most people in the UK who are not Muslim, would not take kindly to an organisation that suggests all Muslims are Islamists, unless they are afraid of leaving Islam. If I went around and said Islam is evil to the core and there are either Islamists and Muslims who want to leave Islam - I would look foolish. Muslims are everywhere here. I know Muslims who are not Islamists and don't wish to leave Islam... this simple bit of personal knowledge would be enough to completely discredit the entire anti-Sharia organisation... which is currently not doing buch more than creating climate of suspicion and fear of all Muslims.

Maybe not all these Muslims are "real" Muslims... I don't know - but even if they are not I don't really care. What I do know is that they think they are Muslim and their identities are linked to Islam... yet they are good decent people. Saying that Islam is evil doesn't get us anywhere. It is up to the theologians to discuss religious tenants - and up to the individuals to make up their own individual minds as to whether or not Islam is for them or not.

If we fight Sharia it will force Muslims to discuss Islam... but discussing Islam is their job, not ours.

I do not want to allow the establishment of a state within a state... it will not have positive ends. I think we should make efforts to fight Islamic supremisism, and that includes fighting against the establishment of Islamic law in our societies.

I am open to criticism... please share your views with me. Thanks.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Question of Legitimacy...

Got it!

I was looking for this video for quite a time in order to answer Red Tulips questions, to explain why we in Eurasia are far more concerned about Sharia law than our American and Canadian counterparts. This Video speaks in itself.

[ Video Source ]

Hope you are not shocked! That is Deobandi Ideology, which is also seen in the majority of Indian Muslims. That interview was shot in the London BBC, not in Al-Jazerra Qatar!

PART 2:

[ Video Source ]

Monday, August 20, 2007

More in the world of Indian Muslims

I wrote earlier of Taslima Nasreen, the ex-Muslim feminist (soon to be wife of PM ;-)), who faces an indictment in India for 'insulting Islam.' I also wrote of the violence against her in Hyderabad. Now it seems she has a 'fresh fatwa' against her life. She was given a month to leave Kolkhata, or she will be killed. This is how much the jihadis believe in freedom of speech.

And yet not all the news from India's Islamic community is bad. Witness a recent delegation of Indian imams to Israel, and what the leader had to say:

The time for violence has come to an end, and the era of peace and dialogue between Muslims and Jews has begun - that was the message delivered by Maulana Jameel Ahmed Ilyasi, secretary-general of the All-India Association of Imams and Mosques, during an interview with Ynetnews.

Ilaysi's organization represents half a million imams, who are the main religious leaders of India's 200 million Muslims.

In an extraordinary visit to Israel, organized by the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) India office, Ilaysi arrived as part of a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders and journalists.

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

The religious leader also said the time had come for Pakistan to establish official relations with Israel. "This is the right thing to do," he added.

These are honestly the words of peace, and I find them to be remarkable. I know PM thinks it is all bluster, but I have to disagree with him. The question, however, is whether this imam is long for the world, and how many Indian Muslims agree with him.

Perhaps Indian Muslims can lead the world as an example of what it truly means to show Islam can be a religion of peace?

Thursday, August 9, 2007

My hero!

It is very easy to be an armchair warrior. It is easy to protest from the safety of your home, to rant and rave online with fellow armchair warriors. It is hard to get in the trenches and do what is necessary to make a difference. To that extent, I have striven to be more than an armchair warrior; I am leading activities in the NYC area and I hope to actually make a difference. But what I have done is nothing. It is a drop in the bucket compared to Salah Choudhury, a "Muslim Zionist" journalist from Bangladesh who faces a possible death penalty for the "crime" of advocating for normalized relations with Israel. Please read what David Harris of AJC wrote about this courageous man.

Mr. Choudhury could have easily sought aslyum in the United States, during his week long reprieve he was granted by the Bangladeshi government. He could have sought personal safety. Instead, this man will travel back to Bangladesh and face trial, with his life on the line. Mr. Choudhury, a man I wrote about earlier, is seeking to empower the peace loving people of Bangladesh. And let me say this. With no exceptions, the Muslim Bangladeshis I have met have been kind, peace loving, and honestly moderate. None had a bad word to say about Israel. I actually lived in a building with two Bangladeshi Americans, and the only bad words they had to say were about Pakistan, and the way that Bangladeshis were treated like dirt by what was once their mother country.

And so I empathize with the Bangladeshi people, some of the poorest on earth, who are simply trying to find their way in this world, but have an authoritarian Islamist government backed by Saudi money that is preventing ordinary Bangladeshis from expressing their opinions and leading their lives as they see fit. And I fear for a new generation of Bangladeshis who, so impovershed, will be taught in Saudi-funded madrassas.

And so what does the US do in response to this crisis? It offers a $20 billion weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. What does Israel do in response to THAT? Olmert says, "No, America, give MORE!"

Knowing Choudhury's plight and how empowering the Saudis disempowers the moderate life-loving Bangladeshis, this puts the Saudi weapons deal in a whole new light. Not only is it a suicidally stupid move, it is a move which as a side-swipe also hurts the innocents around the world who are being victimized by those that the Saudis empower. It hurts the friends we have around the world, not just ourselves.

I would say Bush and Olmert should be ashamed of themselves, but at this point I do not believe Olmert has any shame left inside him.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Lisa Goldman Travels to Lebanon

I have read of Lisa Goldman's amazing adventures in Lebanon, and I must say, please take a look! She wrote it about here and here. This is an independent blogger who is connected to Sandmonkey, a personal friend of mine. I am rather positive she is no "Mossad agent," but of course that was Hezby's spin on this.

Speaking of Hezby...France, under Sarkozy, is acting rather France-like towards them. They want to have direct talks with Hizballah. Somehow this escaped the radar of the news AND the blogs...but it is distressing. I was so excited about Sarkozy, but then this.

With that said...can you blame France? Olmert wants to have direct talks with Syria (ostensibly to give away the Golan Heights), and announced it on the same day that Syria invaded Lebanon!

It seems there is simply a general tenor of defeat and surrender. People just do not seem to care that Hizballah is an organization designed to destroy Lebanon. It hopes to turn it into an Islamic fundie state! Moreover, Hizballah/Syria are behind the murders of any and all politicians who actually seek to better the lives of the Lebanese. Just in the last few years, Rafik Harriri was killed. Pierre Gemayyel was killed. Walid Eido was killed just a few weeks ago. Walid Jumblatt lives with round the clock bodyguards, fully aware of the assassination plots on his life.

And what is this for? To those who support Hizballah, I ask you...what do you hope to accomplish? Do you really believe your problems will be solved if Lebanon becomes a Judenrein state? (yes, Lebanon has Jews, yes a goal of Hizballah is to kill EVERY SINGLE LAST JEW IN LEBANON!) Why do you believe the Lebanese should be held hostage to a brutal dictatorship (Syria - the nation that ultimately calls Hizballah's shots) that is totally cool with mass butchery OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE? Do you just enjoy savagery? Do you enjoy blood letting? Do you believe human life is worthless? Or are you going to tell me that this is really the work of the Zionazis? Are you really going to sell that bill of goods to me, someone who has a Lebanese Jew as a friend, and whose friend witnessed Syrian agents torturing his cousin to death? Who personally had to flee Lebanon because he is on Nasrallah's death list?

Is this your grand vision of Lebanon? Totalitarian Islamic dictatorship, Judenrein, women in burqas, constant prayer, no human rights, and no joy.

Seems pretty grim to me.

EDIT: I would like to add that Bush's stance on this is rather hypocritical. His administration castigated Pelosi's trip to Syria, and rightly so. But I ask: Why is there a U.S. Embassy in Damascus, and none in Jerusalem? Bush has had more than six years to correct this, and has done nothing. This stasis has gone on long enough. Bush is part of the problem...

...But with Olmert seeking direct talks with Assad...can you blame him? Shouldn't Jews take the lead in vigilance against monsters such as Assad? And when Jews DON'T take the lead (and decide defeat and surrender is the ideal policy)...it seems natural to me that others would agree and follow suit.

Friday, June 1, 2007

Alan Johnston video

A video of the BBC reporter Alan Johnston has been released by the group (army of Islam) who claim to be holding him (he was abducted on March 12th on his way home in Gaza). It's a classic Jihadist video, the captive forced into bleating out the groups rants and demands. Now i find this to be counter productive for the Palestinians. As Alan Johnston was the only reporter to live in Gaza and give an account of the Palestinians every day life. It seems the Army of Islam is a shadowy group in Gaza that is slowly gaining a hold.

If this Army of Islam had any morals they would Alan Johnston without delay, but i fear he will end up being killed (if he hasn't been already, the Army of Islam follows the idiology of Osama Bin Laden if reports i saw on the rolling news channels were accurate, i shall do some checking up later. Though i don't think there is much to go on).

Which ever view point you take on the Israel vs Palestinian issues, you cannot deny that you need journalists to report the reality's of the conflict on the ground (even if those journalists are biased in you view - don't bite my head off Tulips, i know you dislike the BBC's reporting of Israel).

I hope i'm wrong and that Alan Johnston is still alive and will be freed shortly. It will be fascinating to hear his account of the experience. Frank Gardner another BBC journalist gave a very frank (pardon the pun) account of his shooting in Saudi Arabia by millitants and his battle to regain his mobility to a certain a degree.

Journalism is our window into the various conflicts around the world. Be they political or religious conflicts. Without Journalists risking their lives we would have very little idea of whats going on. Though these days you have to check up facts like never before (due to the various agenda's the news channels have, Murdoch being the worst example of pushing an agenda through his media outlets).

Thursday, April 5, 2007

My meeting with Elliott Abrams

As mentioned previously, I met with the Deputy National Security Advisor to the United States, Elliott Abrams, a few weeks ago. He was at a local area synagogue, and spoke after Friday night services. The main subject of his talk was Jews in government. Essentially, his claim was that from the 1960s-1990s, it was basically a nonissue to see a Jew in government. However, with the Walt and Mersheimer paper, suddenly, the outside community (not the Bush administration) sees it as a problem that Jews are in government. He said that there are now college courses at elite universities that look at whether the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The Walt/Mersheimer paper is read, and then the Dershowitz response paper is read. Both are 'debated,' to determine the 'truth' of whether AIPAC and the "Israel lobby" control foreign policy. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a class where Holocaust denial literature was read on par with Elie Wiesel's books, and the "truth" of it were debated. Such is the state of modern American academia. Truly frightening. Abrams said that he feared for the future generations, saying he saw antisemitism on the rise not just abroad, but here on American soil, in American academia.

After his talk, there were many questions and answers posed. I raised my hand and asked the first question. My question was: "In light of the fact that Yassir Arafat's uncle was a Nazi who was an architect of the Final Solution, and that Fatah's roots are indeed in Nazism (and there is no indication that Abbas/Abu Mazen thinks any differently)...why is Israel and the US fooling itself by pretending that somehow Abu Mazen is 'moderate' and should be 'negotiated with'?"

Abrams's response was very instructive. He said that Abu Mazen may not be a moderate by "our standards," but he was someone who at least "wanted to talk." However, Abu Mazen has little power, and so it's basically pointless to speak to him until and unless he does have power. He then went on a long sidenote about how moderates rarely do end up in power in these sorts of nations. According to this 'logic,' then it would be up to the US and Israel to do all that is possible to empower Abu Mazen.

But here is where you kind folks will be enlightened. After the talk, a little birdie told me that some people close to Elliott Abrams completely disagree with his characterization of Abu Mazen as "someone who wants to talk," and a "relative moderate," but could not say so publicly. This little birdie also thanked me for saying what I said publicly.

Interesting, no?

Other tidbits from Abrams...

He spoke of Iran and its nuclear threat, and then said that the Democrats wanted to put language into a bill that would take the military option OFF the table for Iran. He said (and I agree with him) that the only way to be effective with Iran is to keep the military option on the table, and he admonished many Jewish organizations who remain silent about this. He also spoke support of the democracy project in these Muslim nations. He believes that democracy is ultimately the answer, since no democracy is a threat to the world.

Afterwards, I privately approached Mr. Abrams. I said to him "Mr. Abrams, respectfully, how can you say that democracy is the answer, when in Egypt, if there were fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected TOMORROW? And the same is true in most of the Muslim world. Democracy? What about Indonesia, where the "democratically" elected president said the Holocaust never happened? What about Iraq, where it looks likely that there will be sharia law? Islam itself is both a political system and a religion. Isn't THAT the problem?"

His response was basically that Egypt is in the state it is in because Mubarak (president of Egypt) has suppressed all opposition parties, and hence the ONLY choice now is the Muslim Brotherhood. He said democracy is a long term, not immediate solution there. Then he said that the Indonesian PM who denied the Holocaust was, after all, voted OUT. He spoke ultimately a line about optimism. And he did so privately - with no one else nearby to even listen in. In short, this is what he really believes. I also mentioned Sandmonkey (with regards to democracy in Egypt) - and yes, Mr. Abrams has heard of him.

There you have it, folks. An inside track into the mind of a top official in the Bush administration, and my interaction with him. I hope you enjoy this read.

I should say that after the talk with Mr. Abrams, I spoke with a director from the Obsession movie (who attended this event), about radical Islam and the like. It was interesting that he did not know much to anything about India. He also thought Robert Spencer's words were "extremist," but he has read his books.

My next post will be a detailed rendering of my attendance at the US-Indian-Israeli relations event.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Once Upon a Time in the West (Midlands)

THE YEAR, 2007.

My name is Adil. I have been born and raised among dutiful and obedient Muslims, and I aim to misbehave.

Already I have fallen from grace. I am no longer one of them, a reason sufficient for their delicately-placed wrath to have me consigned, in this world and the next, to the most grievous of penalties; for what else should the reward be for those who behave like me, they would say if they knew, but disgrace in this life? So no matter where I go in the realms of Islam, I am a hidden traitor to my people, a renegade without honour to be executed. And for them to know of my apostasy is to know of their fear.

Still, now and again I silently walk among the Muslim flock, to observe their incessant bleating and guilty straying, and see how readily they run to the call of their watchful masters, appointees of God who oversee the enjoining of what is good and the forbidding of what is not. And they remind the herd that He is not unmindful of what they do.

Neither am I.


It is raining. Amid the leaf-green patches and high-rise suburbia, the Muslim flock is on the move. As the call to Friday prayers wafts through the doors of the central mosque, an unholy alliance of men walks up the steps and into its entrance. As they remove and shelve their footwear in the foyer, their bland shalwar kameezes, prayer caps, and fistfuls of scraggly hair growth mingle and compete with exaggerated "bomber" jackets, "condom" hats, and goatee beards. But women, all of whom are safely tucked into hijabs and niqabs, move to an unobtrusive side entrance of the mosque.

The car park nearby is, as is usually the case, a scene of confusion. The non-Muslim policeman on duty is feeling the pressure. These Muslims, it appears, do not know how to park their cars, or at least, not around each other. Out of necessity, the ground of the car park itself is not a flat, smooth tarmac: it consists entirely of small, but sizeable, jagged rocks that pre-emptively puncture the ambitions of opportunistic speeders, who would care to exhibit the marvels of their machines. For the more likely that young, fertile, non-Muslim women live and reside in a vicinity, the greater are the efforts invested into displaying male plumage.

But there are males who are aware that sabotaging this holy day in the service of reproductive pursuits is not usually the same as siding with God. As their souped-up, low-slung cars cruise into this arena that is a car park under heavy siege, some of them dutifully decide that it is now appropriate, perhaps, to stop pumping out hip-hop and bhangra. And when the inhabitants of these vehicles finally emerge, together they look like an odd lot. Most conform to the usual urban "rude-boy" stereotype, given how obvious their efforts are in trying to appear "accidentally" attractive; the rest look as if they have just returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca: moustaches are trimmed, beards are not, and the trousers of their long, white jilbabs are jacked above the ankles.

It has long been thus: welcome to this outpost of Islamic civilisation, a colony where the stridency of the faithful collides with vogues that were once confined to the underclass of non-Muslim British society. Muhammad is not just the newest, and the final, of God's prophets; Muhammad is the newest, and the final, of the bling-bling superstars. Since the Rushdie Affair, and more recently the Cartoon jihad, even the most irreligious of the street-savvy Muslim rude-boys have come to know of the new universal limits: nobody disses Mo, the Final Gangster of all time and a Mercy to all the worlds.

Such are the strong sensibilities of those Muslims who are deprived of all high culture, and have only a very nominal sense of their own religious background. If you drew Muhammad sporting gold jewellery, a tailor-made condom hat, a goatee, wraparound orange shades, and tell him to strike a pose, they will not be amused. They will not giggle at how "hard" the prophet is. And, to paraphrase from the movie Pulp Fiction, they will go jahiliyya on your ass. Mo's turf is the entire planet, and his homeboys, which range from imams to the most ridiculous of their underclass congregants, are busy trying to strut their stuff on it.

And many are succeeding.


As I walk into the prayer hall of the mosque, the signs of this being a place for worship are clear: the carpets are arranged in the direction of Mecca, stacks of Korans line the shelves, prayer beads swing from cupboard handles, and an imam is addressing his congregation with a typical sermon, a tedious khutbah admonishing them all and steadfastly calling them to the way of God. By now, the mosque is packed.

Having once belonged to the ranks of believers, I have always understood that heartfelt prayer is to a man's turbulent mind what water is to a flame. For some people, prayer encourages inner tranquillity and peace, and subdues their seething waves of anger, the fiery discontent that simmers away in their heart. And this is an end in itself for some faiths. Not so for Islam: Congregational prayer has always been preferred over individual worship; prayer is just one step on the pathway to mobilising human action within a community. The mosque is more than just a Muslim church; it is like the equivalent of the old Roman forums.

As such, there is little in the way of serenity to be found in mosques. Instead, other things occupy the minds of these congregants. After the prayers, and once the imam's appeal to God to aid the Muslim "resistance" in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan and so on, ad nauseum, is finally over, I walk over to near where a discussion in Urdu is taking place among some men, including the imam. They are talking about how the police apparently like causing their community trouble.

Not so long ago, the area nearby the central mosque was swamped with media reporters and photographers, after terror arrests had been made of some Muslim men living in the vicinity, men who were thought to have been plotting to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and behead him as punishment for aiding the "dirty kuffar". The embarrassment of the community and its leaders was palpable. The chairman of the mosque tried to take the mature line during the whole fray and declared that the raids were obviously part of a government conspiracy to make upstanding, well-respected, and peace-loving Muslims look bad. And the media, which was promptly dubbed by the community as an arm of an anti-Islamic war machine, searched in vain for reasonable concerns coming from within about radical Muslims.

The press did encounter some other interesting things however. One was a sign of the importance attached to good manners by Muslims in the community, as seen in one press photo: a few women, one of whom is pushing her child's buggy, are walking down the street. All are clad in dark niqabs. One of these upstanding, peace-loving Muslim women, who has spectacles jutting out in front of the slit that allows her eyes to peek through, proceeds to salute the flood of press and photographers by sticking two fingers up at them.


I want to ask the imam of this mosque something. Incompetents like him sometimes amuse me. I get my chance when the discussion group finally disperses and he steps away towards the doors.

"Assalaamu Alaikum", I say. I smile and hold out my hand.

"Wa-alaikum salaam" he replies. He shakes my hand, but only by tentatively gripping my fingers, not the palm. Arrogant sod.

"I'm sorry to bother you, but I'd like your advice on a couple of things, if that's okay."

He is not looking at me. He seems rather distracted by the shape of the door he was just heading towards.

"Please be quick. I am in rush."

Okay. I begin with a random question.

"My professor says that natural selection is the only source of life on this earth. What does Islam have to say about this?"

He looks at me for a few seconds, puzzled. "Evolution? Evolution?" he asks. I nod.

"Yaar, it is not allowed. All mad dreams." He waves his hand dismissively.

Huh.

"Okay, I'll look into that. The other thing is that Hizb-ut-Tahrir has been tellling me to join their group to implement the caliphate. They say it's obligatory for me as a Muslim to join and help them to work towards this. What do I do? Are they right?

"Aray yaar, these kids. Small groups. No knowledge. Nothing."

"So what should I say to them?"

"Ignore. Ignore".

"But how are they wrong?"

He is tiring of this conversation.

"They are not knowing".

"They don't know what?"

"Uff, do not ask me such things".

"What?"

But he walks off, with nary a salaam in the wind.


The believers are now feeling suitably chastised and worked up in equal measure, and they file out of the mosque. But there are those for whom the opportunity to chastise has only just begun. As worshippers leave the mosque, they are handed leaflets by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, leaflets that usually rail against an ongoing war against, apparently, Islam, as well as this and that obstacle to the implementation of the mighty khilafah, a universal Islamic state that is said to be the necessary solution given the group's lengthy diagnosis of the ills availing the Muslim world. Usually young, in their 20s and 30s, the supporters of the group are a waste of a generation. They mark out their territory in front of the mosque with a stall selling books and magazines, and their junior supporters, typically smartly suited and booted, coolly patrol the vicinity in search of unsuspecting Muslims, who have not yet realised the potentials of their faith. The flyers and leaflets they hand out freely are all paid out of their pockets.

I walk over to the stall, where a few people are already talking animatedly. Or rather, the designated person looking after the stall is gesticulating energetically. He is not pleased. Your Muslim brothers and sisters are being massacred around the world by the West, he says. There is a hint of embarrassment in the questioner's face at being subjected to such an unexpected display of emotion. No matter how privately posed a question on world affairs may be, it is a religious obligation for the Hizb-ut-Tahrir speaker to spread word of the injustices perpetrated against Muslims far and wide. Any conversation is explored for opportunities for howling oratory. But what is also clear from this spectacle is that senior members of the group are carefully observing the member's performance from the sidelines. And he knows it.

After a while, the man with the question purchases some literature and moves on. I pretend to be looking at a book entitled "The Economic System of Islam". The guy in charge of the stall now turns his attention to me. He seems quite aware that I was in earshot of his little rehearsed monologue.

"Assalaamu Alaikum, brother", he says.

"Wa-alaikum salaam", I reply.

He says nothing, but keeps looking at me expectantly.

"So", I say, smiling.

"Brother, have you been given one of these leaflets?" He holds out one for me to take. I already have one. His accent is a slurred English, although he is clearly more articulate than the imam. I have had many run-ins with the group's suburban mujahideen elsewhere, and I know their type well.

"Actually, no", I lie. "So, what's a khilafah? What does it look like?".

He is pleased at the question, but before answering he quickly glances around to gauge earshot potential. He already knows his seniors are listening.

"Brother, the Islamic khilafah is the Islamic State. It was destroyed in 1924, and ruling by Islam in the state and society ceased", he says emphasising the last word. "Ruling by Islam ceased when the khilafah was destroyed by corrupt rulers who were agents of the kuffar".

Huh.

"Brother, the implementing of the khilafah is a great obligation upon each and every Muslim. It is haram [forbidden] to remain for more than three days without a pledge to a khaleefah being on your neck. It is haram to rule by anything other than Islam and to stay silent about the implementation of kufr laws over us".

His voice is carrying across the courtyard and he shifts to third-person.

"Due to this, Muslims all over the world are sinful in the sight of Allah and they will all receive punishment except those who involve themselves in establishing the khilafah and restore the ruling by that which Allah has revealed. The sin will not be lifted from their necks until the khilafah is established, and whosoever dies without a bay'ah [oath of allegiance to a would-be khaleefah] on his neck will die the death of jahiliyyah [ignorance]."

As Americans are fond of saying: like, whoa.

"So, it is obligatory for every Muslim to help establish the khilafah?", I ask.

"Yes, brother". He looks at me pointedly. "The daleel [evidence] is laid out in the Koran and the Sunnah, and any Muslim who refuses to help establish the khilafah has committed a clear act of kufr and this takes them outside the fold of Islam".

His mention of apostasy is pregnant with implications of punishment by death. And by this time, more of his colleagues are gathering around to listen to this exchange.

"So, you're basically saying: it's obligatory for every Muslim to be subject to all the laws and customs of Islam but the only way for this to come about is by establishing the khilafah, right?"

"Brother, it's not me who is saying this". He holds up a Koran. "Rather, this is God's command to each of us as laid out in the Koran and Sunnah. To be ruled by Islam is an obligation upon our necks. Establishing the khilafah is the only method for establishing Islam over our heads. Only in the presence of the khilafah can the laws of Islam exist and in its absence they are suspended. Brother, there is a very important, well-known Shari'ah principle that says: that which is necessary to achieve an obligation is itself an obligation".

Much of this explains why many of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir members I have met think themselves superior to those Muslims who are considerably more religious than themselves. If you happen to believe that you are already working towards the greatest obligation, that of establishing the khilafah, then all the other religious stuff can just, well, get in line.

"Isn't that principle illogical, though?", I reply. "That's like saying: It's obligatory to free slaves, so it's therefore obligatory to keep slaves so we can free them".

The area goes quiet. The man behind the stall is unsure of how to respond.

"Who's talking about slaves here, brother?"

This is the best response he can come up with?

"What is your name?" comes a voice from behind him. A fat man with spectacles steps forward.

"How is that relevant?"

"Because you do not have knowledge. You clearly need to gain knowledge. You should discuss these matters in greater detail with us - in private".

It seems I have touched upon a criticism that his colleagues were not trained to publicly respond to.

"Actually, you haven't answered my original question", I reply.

"God's logic is not the same as your logic. These things cannot be understood unless one has understand the proofs as laid out in the Koran and Sunnah, and this means learning the process of extracting them, by first having knowledge of how one may reason about the manaat [reality] of the text".

He seems touchy.

"What's the difference between your version of Islam and that of this mosque's?", I ask.

"There are no versions of Islam. There is only one Islam, that of God and His Prophet. Who are you to be asking such questions?", he says.


There is actually not much difference between the "moderates" and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Islamic teachings stipulate that if a Muslim ever happens to find himself in a position of power, no matter where he is, then there is a clear religious obligation upon him to implement the laws of Islam. That is what Muslims usually described as moderate or traditional believe. The main difference is that moderates believe that the establishing of Islamic Shari'ah is conditional, since it depends upon having a Muslim in power in the first place. If there is no Muslim in power, then there is no religious obligation to reach that point. However, they have every desire to implement Shari'ah, given that Islam's own vision of itself has become locked such that it cannot pretend to exist as a minority culture. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, on the other hand, believes there are no strings attached in the pursuit of power. The reign of Islam is religiously obligatory, and whatever leads to it also becomes automatically obligatory. Both are deeply anti-Semitic, anti-women, homophobic, anti-science, and anti-freedom. They are dangerous movements and need to be combated strenuously. Moderates and militants differ in degree, not in kind. One is not the solution to the other.

In fact, militant Islamists spend more marketing effort in distancing themselves from the moderates than vice-versa. The more militant a group is, the more effort they spend in delegitimising those who are less so. Hizb-ut-Tahrir markets itself as being heavily divergent from moderates, and constantly brings attention to what it sees as huge errors in the moderate position. While there is little of actual substance between the two, given the main difference is over a question of whether a certain principle is to be expressed conditionally or not, most Muslims have come to accept Hizb-ut-Tahrir's line that the differences to, and errors in, the moderates are huge.

Moderate imams and their colleagues therefore face a dilemma. On the one hand, they refuse to take on the ideology of radical Islamists for fear of looking incompetent to Muslims at large; on the other hand, by refusing to police the radicals the imams look incompetent to non-Muslims at large. The truth is that they are incompetent on both counts; radical Islamists and the not-so radical imams are not so terribly far apart in their aspirations. One seeks to advance their cultural supremacism in a clear-cut way by installing a universal Islamic state, and the other seeks to spread it diffusely, with weakest areas being targeted first. Differences between the two are mostly down to questions over methodology.

The solution adopted in the face of the dilemma is thus: Most Muslim leaders and communities attempt to alleviate their public incompetence by shifting the burden of action onto non-Muslims, claiming that unless they start acting responsibly by stop acting so "belligerently" towards Muslims, then "small groups with little knowledge" will flourish and be attracted towards extreme ideas. Indeed, the chairman of the mosque described has updated this argument of late: these extreme groups, which range from Hizb-ut-Tahrir to al-Qaeda, are all government conspiracies.


Now I am feeling rather more uncomfortable than I did when I entered the mosque's vicinity. There are plenty of people milling around me, but there is also this group of unimpressed-looking men asking me who I am and what I am up to. The fat Hizb-ut-Tahrir man with spectacles is trying his best to be intimidating, but he seems unsure as to whether I'm buying it. I'm not.

"Let me ask you, what if it turns out to be true that those who were arrested last month actually were planning to murder that British Muslim soldier?", I ask.

"Astaghfirullah. And let me ask you, you call that kafir a Muslim? Let me ask you, where is the evidence that these well-respected, peace-loving community members have done wrong? Show me! People are supposed to be innocent until proved guilty, yet the kuffar accuse Muslims of being guilty through trial by media. The kuffar accuse us advocating a police state, yet try to silence Muslims so they can justify their foreign policy! Why? So they can get on with the butchering of Islam and abuses of Muslims across the world!" He jabs his finger violently in my direction. "You need to smell the coffee! Tell me, where do you stand? Do you support the harm done against this Muslim community?"

"I think you're hysterical", I say.

"Hysterical? Hysterical? What about our Muslim sisters and children in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan? Tell me, do they have no right to be hysterical about their situation? Do you expect us all to just sit back and enjoy seeing our Muslim sisters being ripped of their honour at the dirty hands of the kuffar? Especially when an apostate aids the kuffar in abusing their dignity and livelihoods? Do you expect us to stay silent and instead dance to Bush and Blair's tune? Tell me!"

"You're misguided, aren't you?"

"This is a Muslim area. Get out", says one of his comrades.

"Actually, sunshine, this is my country."

Now several guys are facing me. Some step closer. But there are many people still in the vicinity.

"You would contemplate attacking me? For what? What do you think you can get away with in broad daylight?", I ask.

"I do not suffer apostates", the fat man says.

"You want to take over this country? Over my dead body".

He stares at me directly. His look is almost apologetic.

"Yes, exactly. That is the material point".

And they chuckle.



This article has been adapted from a book that Adil is currently writing.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The morality of MURDER

Several months ago, I wrote posts about terrorism and heroism. I feel that the two posts need to be re-read in light of a recent brutal murder of an Israeli settler near Hebron. This person, Erez Levanon, was stabbed to death by two Israeli teens. Islamic Jihad is claiming responsibility. The crime of Mr. Levanon? Existing. Levanon was not a soldier. He was not a warrior. Rather, all he wanted to do was pray in peace. But Mr. Levanon was a 'settler,' and hence inherently 'evil,' merely by existing. The justification for the attack was that Mr. Levanon was simply living in land that never was 'Palestinian' to begin with, and at the very MOST could be considered disputed territory. (Please read my earlier column explaining why I support Israel's 'settlements.') Yet the world swallows this 'justification' as if there is a moral equivalence. The fact that Mr. Levanon was living in land that Israel has every right to, mind you, is seen as morally equivalent to his brutal stabbing death. It's 'understandable' that 'Palestinians' would brutally slay a settler, because, goshdarnit, the settler is the original evil by trespassing, anyway! OR, it's understandable why an unarmed man would be killed, because it's logical 'retaliation' for Israel's killing Palestinians who are engaged in active warfare with Israel. (please visit Aussie Dave's analysis of the inconsistency in the media reports concerning the death of one such 'Palestinian') Let's see some examples of the MSM's 'reporting' of the issue... United Press International - Spends time going over the IDF activities in Nablus, and then mentions in passing that Erez Levanon was killed, implying that it was linked to Nablus activities, justified by it, or generally insignificant compared to the harm caused to 'Palestinians.' Boston Globe - Spends time discussing activities in Nablus, and then mentions in passing about Levanon, after it goes into detail about the death of Anan Tibi, and 'delays of Palestinian medical trucks.' (this ignores the Red Crescent link to terror, of course) BBC - Oops, no coverage of the Levanon death! L.A. Times - Almost word for word the same as the Boston Globe. N.Y. Times - Spends many paragraphs discussing Tibi's death, as well as the Nablus activities of the IDF, and a passing sentence about Levanon. You get the point. I could do a wider analysis of every single MSM outlet that discusses the death of Erez Levanon, but they are all very similar. Please note how the MSM spends so little time discussing Levanon's death, and so much time discussing Tibi's death. Please also note how Levanon's death is framed - as if it is a justified retaliation to the IDF's activities in Nablus. (activities that are necessary for Israel's security!) Far leftists (and far 'rightists') will openly proclaim Levanon's death as justified because of the mere fact that he is a settler. But the MSM, in the way it covers things, is subtley saying the same. There is no moral equivalence. And there is no justified link between the murder of people like Levanon, and the 'Palestinian' dreams of statehood. While we are NOT fighting a war on 'terror,' (we are fighting a war against Islamofascism), this terror is NOT justified under ANY logical form of reasoning! These Palestinians are NOT heroes or 'martyrs' for some higher cause! Rather, they are the WORST ENEMIES OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE! And by acknowledging this, I am one of the few truly 'pro-Palestinian' people out there.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Islamic Hate Text-books, in the United Kingdom

Ace of Spades linked to a you tube video that shows how a Saudi school...IN THE UK...teaches that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs, and that anyone who isn't Muslim will perish in hellfire. The headmistress of the school was questioned, and saw nothing wrong with the textbooks! Actually, she said they are perfectly fine and non-hateful. Go watch, yourself It's sad and sick to see indoctrination in Islamic countries. It's worse to see such indoctrination in a nation known for Locke, Hobbes, Maggie Thatcher, and Churchill. I ask you all...how can we fight effective wars abroad when we aren't even doing enough on the home front?

Thursday, February 22, 2007

From the Ashes of a Burnt Train

*UPDATE** Please see updates to this story here.

*UPDATE 2** can be located here The date of this story was changed so it remains on the front page for a longer time.

***** 18th February, 2007: Yet another chapter has been added to the list of terrorist attacks committed on the Indian transportation system. While politicians now appear to have decided to comment with even greater caution as to the content of their own remarks on the atrocity, the MSM (Mainstream Media) has somehow tried to further their censorship of such comments by politicians, with the result that the real picture is increasingly mired in thick fog. Verbal tricks now commonly being deployed among the Western MSM, such as the remark that "a person of South Asian origin" was behind the terrorist attack, continues as ever to evade and obscure the real issues at hand. But still the question remains: what is really happening? This question will remain unanswered satisfactorily until vast sections of the media stop defending the real terrorists, and until politicians stop their continual hesitation in discussing global terrorism from behind a thick veil of political correctness. The following documentation will take you inside the untold story of the "blast in Samjhauta Express," and will address existing differences among media reports, and what they certainly forgot to tell. This is not the first time that Indian railways have come under attack from terrorist and radical elements. To begin with, we list a chronology of attacks provided by the MSM on this very issue:

July 11, 2006: 185 people were killed in seven bomb explosions at rail stations and on trains in Mumbai. March 13, 2003: A bomb attack on a commuter train in Mumbai killed 11 persons. June 22, 1999: A powerful explosion rocked the New Jalpaiguri railway station killing at least nine passengers, including two Indian soldiers headed for Kashmir. 85 others were injured, including 10 soldiers. July eight, 1997: Thirty-three people were killed in a bomb blast in a passenger train at Lehra Khanna railway station in Punjab's Bhatinda district. December 30, 1996: Thirty-three people were killed in a bomb blast in Brahmaputra Mail between Kokrajhar and Fakiragram stations in lower Assam.

The above provided chronology, a chronology available on almost every media site, can easily be located at the following URLs: (Times of India; NDTV.com; Washington Post) Almost every Indian, including Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Sikhs, is openly condemning this terror attack. Moderate Muslims are also victims of terrorism, because if they disagree with the Jihadists, then such radical elements will attack them as well. However, the terrorism cited is taking place in Hindu-majority India. When the media focuses on radical Hindu groups, but pays less attention to the radical Islamic groups, this gives an extra reason for moderate Muslim groups not to speak out. As an individual from India, I will document the situation as I interpret it. I hope the following will enlighten you about an India that you may not have yet explored. If you were to ask me to explain the attack on Samjhauta express, then I will say not just that it is a terrorist atrocity like others, but also thus:

If you ignore one massacre, there will be another soon waiting to happen.

In line with this, this episode is unfortunately not something new happening on Indian trains. Just look at a few descriptive words from the horrific Samjhota Express tragedy: On the train, many feared to be dead, bodies were charred beyond reorganisation, disturbing their peace process, heinous crime, bottles of explosives, screaming, struggling to get out of fire stricken carriages… Put these floating words next to perhaps any Hindu, or a person well aware of Indian history, and he will give you an account of an incident that took place on 27th February, 2002. Unfortunately, this same incident has been missed out on altogether in the above chronologies. Perhaps the MSM saw that an attack on Hindus was not a terrorist attack, thus becoming the latest addition to the Indian brand of "Negationism"? However, the manner in which the recent Samjhota Express terror attack was reported is yet another example of why Hindu Indians are losing faith in their government. But the government will claim it is only "Hindu radicals" that are losing faith in the Indian National Congress-led government. Anger is not only growing towards the Indian government, but also towards the West. A typical Indian thinks that these kinds of cover-ups and endless submissive posturing to certain Islamic interest groups owes in large part to Western pressures, and wonders why India does not take action against terrorist organisations inside Pakistan-organised Kashmir. A recent NDTV poll shows that Indians thinks the West uses double standards in dealing with terror. While Indians have faced terrorist attacks continuously for decades, western commentators seem unwilling to sympathise with the pain of India, as in the case of documentaries like Obsession, where they just skipped any reference to the Indian experience. People have been murdered, and an unbearable pain exists in hearts of relatives and friends of those murdered victims. But the question arises: how do you begin to define this human pain? In the case of the "Samjhauta Express," the Indian government has accepted that there was a security loophole. In case of the Godhra train burning, we got thousands of conspiracy theories. Are moderate Muslims ready to accept the comment of Laloo Prasad Yadav that it was just a security loophole, or will they also think of the inter-religious hate that Muslims direct towards non-Muslims? If the Indian government even speaks from security loophole point, then why was there little or no discussion about the security of Indians after the Mumbai bomb blast? Why were fire-extinguishers not installed in Indian trains after the Godhra incident? Various other questions include ones such as whether Panipat was strategically chosen. If it was, then why is the media not speaking of it? Why did the blast occur in an ultra-sensitive security zone? How did the blast occur? Who was behind the attack? All of the answers are hidden inside Godhra train burning incident, the same incident that was brutally ripped off from terror attack chronologies. Perhaps Americans should learn from this that if they do not defend themselves against 9/11 conspiracy theories, they will also end up with similar fates, with no one to remember victims of 9/11, except all those who curse Americans for their war against terror. The media has chosen the option of sidelining 9/11. So to see what is really missing in media commentaries, and what politicians really want to hide, let us drill into Godhra.

REVISITING ASHES OF GODHRA

The Godhra Train Burning Incident occurred in the town of Godhra in the Indian state of Gujarat at 0630 hrs on 27 February 2002. A train named the "Sabarmati Express" caught fire right after it left the train station. One of the coaches (Coach #S6) that was set on fire was occupied by Hindu religious pilgrims called Kar Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. 58 Hindu pilgrims including 15 women and 20 children were burnt alive in the train coach. It is said that intelligence agencies were aware of an impending disaster as the areas around the small town of Godhra were by then already called mini-Pakistan. Americans must equate this to those 9/11 conspiracies theories which place blame back on America. Coach S6 was completely gutted by the fire. The fire happened during an attack by a Muslim mob following an altercation between the Hindu pilgrims and local Muslims when the train was in platform. People, who are unaware of the background, should understand that term "mini Pakistan" was a term coined at a time when Islamabad had a stronghold of terrorists, and radical Islamic elements were openly taking roads in Karachi and Islamabad. These Islamists were contributing to worldwide demonstrations of calls of "death to America, death to Israel, death to India." The areas which were full of people sympathizing and contributing in those death call missions were known as mini-Pakistan. The Tribune reported:

As the train left Godhra station, one of the miscreants who had boarded it, pulled the chain alarm after some time to halt the train a km away. It was here that a large number of stone-pelting [Muslim] miscreants set the coach ablaze by throwing petrol bombs and dousing it with kerosene and petrol.

Setting Frame around Godhra train burning incident

Initial investigations led to the suspicion that a planned conspiracy was behind the train burning, rather than a spontaneous reaction. In 2003, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police moved the session's court in Godhra to invoke provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) against all 123 accused in the case, including seven who were out on bail. On February 6, 2003, Maulana Hussein Umarji a Muslim leader of the Deobandi sect of Islamic Fundamentalism in Godhra, was arrested. The police alleged that he was the prime conspirator in the train burning. His arrest followed the confessional statement of Jabir Binyamin Behera, an accused who was arrested on January 22. For those who are unaware, Deobandi sect of Islam also represents the Talibani movement. Behera confessed that around 11.30 p.m. on the previous night he was present on the ground floor of a guest house when other suspects arrived on a scooter and initiated the first meeting. Allegedly, the strategy was to launch an attack at the slightest provocation from the Kar Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. The same night, the conspirators collected 140 litres of fuel from a local petrol pump and stored it at a guest house. They also had instructions from Umarji, who had advanced information on the position of the Kar Sevaks on the Sabarmati Express and specifically told them to target Coach S6 of the train. The confession further went that a second meeting was held around midnight after which a co-conspirator named Paanwala allegedly left for the railway station to check on the train's arrival time. After learning that the train was late, they scrapped their original plan of a pre-dawn attack. In his confession Behera says it was Umarji ( equivalent figure to the Mayor of London, who had supported Mega Mosque project) who advised him against surrendering to the police. The investigators considered Umarji(leader of the Deobandi-Tablighi Jamaat) a "big catch" since the mob that burnt bogie S6 was mainly composed of people from the Ghanchi community, a majority of whom were followers of the Deobandi sect. It was also suggested that foreign Islamic terrorists were involved in the act thus necessitating the invocation of POTA. In September, the investigations changed course with the naming of Razzak Kurkur, a hotelier from the Muslim-dominated Signal Falia area, as an accused. It was then claimed that though a huge mob was involved in the attack, the actual train burning was the handiwork of a core team of twenty. By the end, the findings of Godhra were suffering the conspiracies theories, like the vast conspiracies theories in case of 9/11. The defense lawyers of the accused argued against the theories of the SIT, alleging that the charge sheets did not mention that the accused were active participants in the burning, and that the confessions needed to be backed up by sufficient evidence. The SIT report has also been questioned for apparent inconsistencies, such as the speed at which the petrol fuel was delivered to the attack site, and the lack of witnesses. Frontline reports on Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police findings:

SIT called a press conference to reiterate its conspiracy theory. Rakesh Asthana, who heads the SIT. He maintains that the plan to torch the train was masterminded during meetings at the Aman Guest House, owned by Razak Kurkur, who allegedly heads a local criminal gang involved in railway crimes. ... the actual operation was conducted by six people, who cut open the vestibule and entered the coach, opened the doors of the compartment and poured 120 litres of petrol (each person supposedly carried a 20-litre jerry can) before jumping out. Then, burning rags were thrown into the compartments through the windows. The SIT's main evidence is a court confession by Zabir Bin Yameen Behra, one of those who allegedly entered coach S-6. Behra first gave details of how the plan was hatched. Later, he went back on the testimony, saying the police forced him to depose before the court.
Searching Godhra in Samjhauta Express flames
In the Samjhauta Express incident, the majority of victims were Pakistani Muslims, but the various similarities between Godhra and Samjhauta Express case are ignored. The ignorance given to Godhra itself raises various questions about the neutral role of Indian government and Mainstream Media. Normally, all of the reports say that the purpose of the attack on the Samjhauta Express was to derail the peace process, or indirectly to provoke Hindu Muslim riots. Condemning the incident, Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav said it was an attempt to derail the improving relations between the two sides. "The dead include children, guards and many of our Pakistani brothers and sisters," said Lalu. "Whoever is behind the incident is against peace and wants to spoil our growing relationship with other countries," said Patil. More of political and media condemnation and its media coverage can be located here: (Daily Pioneer; BBC) While most news agencies were busy in mangling the news from the ground, the BBC was shining a bit of light on the topic, despite its previous record.
The reaction from both governments suggests the prime suspects might be groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad - the main Islamic militant groups, who have been blamed for many high-profile bombings, says the BBC's Jill McGivering.
They further added:
Recent attacks on Delhi, Mumbai and Varanasi, for example, seemed designed to damage India's image abroad and stoke anti-Pakistan feeling inside India. But the fact that so many of the dead on the train were Pakistani Muslims may indicate that the devices were intended for a different target, or exploded prematurely, she says.
For sure, I must appreciate the BBC's lead in this coverage, for accepting the truth of Islamic militancy, but is name-mangling a solution to Islam-o-phobia? Is it helping the world to fight global terrorism? Is it a crime if you openly blame Wahhabi or Salafi ideology instead of covering up things in tags like "South Asian"? Let's connect various news sources to understand why Panipat was chosen.

Dissecting Panipat Geographically

Panipat lies in Indian State Haryana, bordering another Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

This area is also famous for high crime rates; since criminals found it a haven in escaping to the neighbouring state of Uttar Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh and Haryana are divided by river Yamuna). The crime rate in that area soars even higher than that of Jammu and Kashmir. The 2003 records are available here from across the Yamuna region. From 2003 onwards, there were some new promotion policies under which a police officer is promoted if the crime rate goes down. This started a new trend, and if you go to police station in western UP (trans-Yamuna from Panipat) to report a crime, they will be reluctant to register your report. As soon as a criminal cross this river, he in a different state, served by different rules, observed by different police, and also a different kind of lawlessness. In short, if you do a crime one side of the river, just go to the other side and it becomes the rhetorical completion of a pilgrimage to Mecca; you are sin-free again. There are open borders, so there is no fear of border agents controlling militants crossing inside Haryana. The ability to return back to the other state is applicable; it may vary from a few months or sometimes a year. Indian police usually stores its data in registers (not electronic, but paper registers), and after few years these registers are dumped in some preservative room to store the data of crime for future use, perhaps for some statistical survey. Unlike western Islamofascists, Indian Islamofascists don't have to flee the country, but rather just have to cross the state borders to secure themselves. If you are in India, and break some rule, now you know the trick as to how to get off scot-free. In discussing Godhra riots, we came across the Deobandi sect of Islam. If one crosses the river Yamuna from Panipat, you are in a stronghold of Deobandis, the Indian district of Muzaffarnagar. This district also came to light last year with the Imrana rape case. Deoband, the origin of Deobandi sect of Islam, is one of the neighbouring cities to Muzaffarnagar. This district also came in light last year with Imrana Rape case. Deoband, the origin place of Deobandi sect of Islam, is one of neighbouring cities from Muzaffarnagar.

Historical significance of Panipat and neighbourhood

Panipat in itself is famous for various historical battles, but the historical significance here is with respect to Deobandi, which lies on the other side of Yamuna, and is a stronghold in the neighbouring areas of Panipat. These areas are Sonipat, Muzaffarnagar, Deoband, Meerut and so on. In recent years it has been observed that various Deobandi madrassas have popped up in this area, including in Panipat.

Note: You may have also observed Deobandi Madrassas popping up in your cities too. The Mega Mosque Project from London is also a Deobandi project, as Tablighi Jammat is an umbrella group from the Deobandi sect.

In fact, the Deobandi movement in itself started from among neighbouring areas of Panipat, like the Saharanpur district (holding Deoband city), or Muzaffarnagar (an active participant in the 1857 mutiny) or Meerut. The Deobandi movement was an outcome after failure of 1857 Mutiny to save the Mughal Caliphate, which also started from this localized zone. More about this can be found here. (BBC; Sepoy Mutiny)

Joining the data available from various news sources about the Samjhauta incident

Samjhauta Express, which the media has advertised as the "Friendship Express" has one more meaning. Samjhauta also means deal. But these differences are merely of words, like that of Islam's meaning: does it mean peace (or does it mean surrender?).

In any case, the necessary condition you must fulfil to board on "Deal Express" is to get a passport (valid or fake) with a visa stamped in it (i.e. visa of the country you are bound to travel).

Hindustan Times

These conditions can be easily fulfilled by general passengers, as well as terrorists. The terrorist is then welcome to board the train to enter the country of Kufirs, the gateway of Paradise.

Some ex-terrorists have previously revealed how they travelled across the border using valid passports through the Samjhauta Express. This news from 6th January 2006 is still available in archives here:

Daily Excelsior NDTV

With the "war on terror" taking its hold over south Asia, Pakistan seems to be serious for the first time about holding a peace deal. We may never know: is it due to intense international pressure or because now Pakistanis slowly understanding that radical Muslims are enemies of whole human civilizations?

With this in mind, on 18 February 2007, some terrorist (we don't know the nationality, nor religion as yet), with all documents (valid or fake), joined the journey of Samjhata Express which was packed with a majority of Pakistani Muslims, a minority of Indian Muslims and six security personnel. The train was set bound towards Atari with one technical halt in between (it is not clear whether it was Ambala or Ludhiana).

Yahoo News

The terrorist managed to enter the train with 4 or 5 suitcase-bombs (it is difficult to get exact figure from documentations, as some say five suitcases). Each suitcase-bomb includes an electronic timer encased in clear plastic and packed next to more than a dozen plastic bottles containing a cocktail of fuel oils and chemicals. Of these, two exploded.

Reuters

Before the blast, two men (or perhaps even as many as five) managed to jump out of the train near Dewana (which falls under Panipat district) as the train slowed down near Dewana station. These two suspects engaged in a heated argument with the personnel of Railway Protection Force for about 20 minutes. This took place 15 minutes before the blast.

DDI News

After going through Dewana station, the train speeds up the engines. The man controlling the signals at Dewana station noticed a fire in the back compartments of the train and ran to the control signals to stop the train.

AP wire quoted: "Alerted to the blast by a railway worker, assistant station manager Vinod Kumar Gupta emerged from his trackside house and said he "saw flames leaping out of the windows.""

The train was already in speed of around 80-100 kms/hr, and then the sudden breaking induced a loud noise. Due to this noise, villagers from near by area gathered and had tried to extinguish the fire. The train halted about 1 km away from when the noise first started.

Awakened by the screeching of brakes, villagers in Sewah, just up the tracks from Dewana, rushed to douse the fire and save whomever they could.

"I opened my shop and grabbed buckets," said Satish Sharma, a 33-year-old store owner who sprinted up the dirt road toward the tracks, past the small temple to the Hindu god Shiva.

"We threw bucket and bucket on the train but the flames grew higher - we could do nothing," he said. "I could smell the people being burned - I wanted to vomit."

The intense heat had sealed shut at least one door in the forward coach, and the windows were barred, trapping passengers inside. At least another dozen died in the rear coach, from whom authorities said 20 to 25 people managed to escape through an open door, some jumping out with their clothes on fire.

"Fire trucks arrived about 45 minutes later. Within two hours, the two damaged coaches - now little more than blackened hulls on wheels - were pushed off to a siding."

Miami News

What was left behind was the death of many innocents, and for sure moderate Muslims. But the incident has raised many other questions too.

MOVING BACK TO GODHRA

By now we know that a suitcase packed with kerosene bottles can burn a train compartment.

A big suitcase can carry 10 to 15 bottles (1 litters Bottles as shown by police officials).

Thus the outcome is: two suitcases carrying less then 25 liters of kerosene (each) were enough to burn a whole train compartment.

The Fire brigade was also arrived after 45 minutes, and when the fire was extinguished.

The BBC further describes the scene by quote :

The BBC's Soutik Biswas, at the scene, said the heat of the flames had peeled the blue paint off the coaches, and oil and cinders covered the tracks.

But in case of Godhra, Mr. Laloo Parsad (Railway Minister) presented a enquiry report, says that the train coaches are designed as “fire-proof”. Tribune India

A Tribune archive from above quoted links says..

“The team, headed by Justice U.C. Bannerjee, held meetings with the General Manager, Mr Mohammad Sirajjudin. The team members were given details about the chemicals and procedures involved in making fire-proof coaches. The members discussed the factors that could have been responsible for the fast spread of fire in the coaches of Sabarmati Express.”

Further another archive information about Godhra (located here) says:

“With the elimination of the ‘petrol theory’, ‘miscreant activity theory’ as well as ruling out of any possibility of ‘electrical fire’, the fire in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express can at this stage be ascribed as an ‘accidental fire’,” the committee said in its interim report which was submitted by Justice Banerjee to the Railway Board Chairman R.K. Singh. The committee was appointed by the UPA Government in September last year at the instance of Railway Minister Laloo Prasad.

Unfortunately, the description of the Samjhauta Express with regards to peeled-off blue paint, oil and cinders speak volumes about the fire-proof standards of Indian trains. Perhaps the Fraud section under this link describing fire-proofing explains it well.

Some more important points to notice are:

  • The Godhra incident includes burning of one train compartment with 120 to 140 litres of petroleum. In the case of Samjhauta Express it took less than 25 litres of kerosene.
  • There were attempts to extinguish the flames by villagers and they were joined by fire brigade after 45 minutes. In the case of Godhra, there was no fire brigade for a long time. The first thing security personnel were concerned with was with moving Muslim mobs back. By this time groups of Hindus had burnt to death in the Godhra train burning incident.

We do know that Laloo is giving a compensation of one million Indian rupees ($22,690) to each victim, which is perhaps the largest sum of money any terror victim has received from the Indian government. We also know that Laloo vote bank is Muslim. We don't say that he should not contribute this way in helping victims, or that he should not think of his vote bank; however, can't he provide a bit of respect to those who died in Godhra train burning incident also? Bloomberg

Although terrorists are trying their best to provoke Hindu Muslims into fighting, what is especially troubling is what Indian politicians are trying to prove by brutally cleaning history. When they speak cautiously, why not also take caution that victims of Godhra also don't get hurt due to their dirty politics?

Some questions that arise

Owing to the proximity of the Samjhauta bombing to the Kasuri Peace visit, it seems quite likely that someone really against this peace process undertook the Samjhauta bombing. The organizations most to lose from this peace process are the terrorist organisations from Kashmir. When the "war on terror" gets close and tight, the terrorist outlet finds it hard to sustain their activities.

JKLF have openly protested: Hindustan Times Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are already pointed by the BBC.

And everything else roams around a region, which is close to the hub of Deobandis. Questions to ask: why do terrorist usually take shelter in mosques? In this case, why had terrorist choosen this specific location for escaping, a location which takes them only towards the hub of Deobandis?

Are the terrorists radical Hindus? If the government says it can't be ruled out, then who am I to say anything against it? But a logical question still remains: why would radical Hindus choose 18th Feburary 2007, when waiting a week would provide a reason in the form of the 5th anniversary of Godhra riots?

Some more data to be concerned with

The Tablighi Jammat is now expanding its work in the West. The Indian counterpart is given to SIMI. With the help of corrupted Indian politicians, SIMI don't need to feast at all. SIMI was believed to be linked to the Mumbai bomb blast last year. The terrorist organisation SIMI has had to face terrible shocks due to their linkage with that bombing, but ever since then, why have Indian politicians taken all charges back against radical organisations like SIMI (in Hindi only)?

We will never know really what the majority of politicians around South Asia are cooking up, but we do know that this will affect our lives, as well as lives of moderate Muslims.

This is a question for the sake of survival. After every Islamic terrorist attack, news channels broadcast a special series of article, which are typically entitled "Muslims feel the heat". Instead of condemning the terror openly, the media always tries to give a shelter to terrorists so they can hide behind words of ambiguity. Under the unknown truth about Samjhauta Express, questions still prevail:

Was it a Hindu radical who utilised the gateway, the same gateway Indian politicians had provided to terrorists via "Deal Express", so that he could check terrorist inflow inside India?

Or was it an Islamofascist, who was devastated with "war on terror" and the "peace process", and thus looked to attack the "Friendship Express"?

Whomever it was, I am sure that now Muslims feel the heat. I hope that Moderate Muslim world got a lesson, a lesson that our society is really polarized. The polarisation of society started from Islamic mosques and madrassas, which are making the world unsafe for all. If they really want to live in peace, then they should stop promoting radical mentalities inside their mosques, by speaking loudly against radical mullahs.

As for Indian politicians, please stop brutally cleaning the history of India. We do know what "Samjhauta" means in Islam. So before making any "Peace Deal", do read Koran SURA 9:5

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I hope that Pakistan's approach for peace is really meant for peace instead of "Samjhauta" (deal). But what they call peace, we call it surrender. The democratic world wants the Muslim world to throw away those Hate Suras, if they are really looking forward towards a peaceful world. But before signing the new peace pact book, you may need to actually stop teaching your children hate.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Updates in the Samjhauta Express bombing incident

I hope you all found PM's article about the recent train bombing in India to be as insightful as I did. If you have not read the article, please read it right here. However, since that train bombing, there have been new updates to the story.
  1. Pakistan blamed India for the recent attack, saying India did not employ adequate security. (source) Meanwhile, the BJP party in India blamed Pakistan, saying the attack was an attempt to stick a "made in India" label on Pakistan's homegrown terror. (source)
  2. Pakistan has called for a joint investigation into the attack, and India has turned down the request for this, but said they will share findings with Islamabad. (source)
  3. India and Pakistan just signed a nuclear pact with each other. (source)
More information about the recent terror attack in India may be found right here, on the Times of India's regularly updated website. There is some very encouraging news out of India, namely that India has enacted sanctions against Iran. (source) This is great news, and is shows that India is moving closer and closer towards more fully aligning itself with the West.

Monday, January 29, 2007

How to defeat Islamofascism and hate

In light of yesterday's deadly attack in Eilat, I thought I would post something about what every person out there, across the world, can do to defeat Islamofascism. Every person should be the best person they can be. That seems somewhat obvious, but really, it is not. When I was in Israel, I encountered all sorts of people, good and bad. And in my encounters, I had to be careful to not generalize. For instance, if a shopkeeper was rude to me, it would have been very easy to generalize and say "all Israeli shopkeepers are rude." And yet that is what happens every day. Think about it. You are all ambassadors for the ethnic/racial/social groups that you are a member of. Every single contact that you have with every single person you encounter (and I mean everyone), has the potential to make a difference in the world. Let's say, for instance, you are rude to someone on the subway. Let's say it was something so simple as not being able to get a seat when you wanted to. What then? The person you were rude to may choose to forget about what happened, or they could look at you and say "Oh, look at that XYZ person. TYPICAL! Another rude XYZ person." And then your little action will have a ripple effect across the world. Very few of us will be working for the FBI, IDF, CIA, Mossad, etc etc etc. Very few of us will be in positions of real power to be able to effect massive change on a more global scale. And yet each of us has a responsibility to be the best people we possibly can. I think the small little 'nothing' decision that we make every day often are overlooked. And yet they are the most important decisions of all. There is more that we can all do. Each of us has a responsibility to read as much as possible, and inform ourselves about the state of the world, so that in casual conversation, you will accurately be able to assert your position with friends and acquaintances. Each of us has the responsibility to spread what we know to those that we know, thus shedding some light upon the ignorance of the world. When combining both efforts on a mass scale, it will do a heck of a lot to defeat ignorance and hate. Just remember these things every morning you wake up out of bed. Think about what you can do, in your own small way, to make the world a better place. All the best, Red Tulips