CAG pulls up MEA for "unwieldy" Haj goodwill delegation
New Delhi (PTI): the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has pulled up the External Affairs Ministry for sending a "extravagant" and "unwieldy" Haj goodwill delegation to Saudi Arabia every year in "disregard for economy in public expenditure."
The CAG asked the MEA to reduce the size of the delegation and cut short their stay in Saudi Arabia. It also asked the Ministry to review the extravagance in hiring of the accommodation and transport and de-link the pilgrimage by the members of the delegation.
The Centre sends a Haj goodwill delegation for 18-20 days to Saudi Arabia every year to promote goodwill between the two countries, in particular with special reference to cooperation extended by Saudi Arabia to Haj pilgrims from the country.
"The Ministry has not established the goodwill functions to be performed by the members of the delegation through which the fulfilment of the intended objectives is ensured," the CAG said in his report.
The CAG also pulled up the MEA for determining the size of the delegation every year in an ad-hoc manner.
"Large size of the delegations continues to be approved despite the formal recommendations in the past of our Consul General at Jeddah and by the leaders of the delegations that the big size of delegation is unwieldy, unnecessary and counter-productive," the report said.
The CAG said the MEA has not established any criteria for determining the suitability of the members included in the delegation
Source: The Hindu
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Soft Jihadis: The Violent Truth Behind The Sufi Mask
The Violent Truth Behind The Sufi Mask
Following is a presentation of excerpts taken from Sita Ram Goel's works.
M any Hindus have been misled, mostly by their own soft-headed scholars, to cherish the fond belief that the Sufis were spiritual seekers, and that unlike the Mullahs, they loved Hindu religious lore and liked their Hindu neighbours. The Chistiyya Sufis in particluar have neem chosen for such fulsome praise. The orthodox among the Muslims protest that the Sufis are being slandered. But the Hindus remains convinced that they themselves know better. Professor Aziz Ahmad is a renowned scholar of Islam in India. He clinches the matter in the following words : "In Indian sufism anti-Hindu polemics started with Muinal-din Chisti. Early sufis in Punjab and early Chistis devoted themselves to the task of conversion on a large scale. Missionary activity slowed down under Nizam al-din Auliya, not because of any new concept of eclecticism, but because he held that the Hindus were generally excluded from grace and could not be easily converted to Islam unless they had the opportunity to be in the company of the Muslim saints for considerable time."
Of course, the Auliya who lived in a sprawling khanqah and re- ceived rich gifts out of plunder was convinced that he himself was such a Muslim saint. His temper and teachings can be known easily from die, writings of Amir Khusru, the poet, and Ziauddin Barani, the historian. Both of them were leading disciples of the Auliya. Both of them ex- press a great hatred for Hindus, and regret that the Hanafl school of Islamic Law had come in the way of wiping out completely the "curse of infidelism" from the face Hindustan.
A similar Sufi saint who died a mere 79 years before Waliullah's birth, was Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624). He was always foaming at the mouth against Akbar's policy of peace with the Hindus. He proclaimed himself the Mujaddid-i-alf-i-sdni, 'renovator of the second millennium of Islam'. Besides writing several books, he addressed many letters to several powerful courtiers in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. His MaktiibCtt-i-Imdm RabbanT have been collected and published in three volumes. According to Professor S.A.A. Rizvi, "Shariat can be fos- tered through the sword' was the slogan he raised for his contemporar- ies.
A few specimens should suffice to show the quality of this man's mind. In letter No. 163 he wrote: "The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims... The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in gran- deur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam." In Letter No. 81 he said: "Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jiziya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice." After Guru Mun Deva had been tortured and done to death by Jahangir, he wrote in letter No. 193 that "the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus."
Sirhindi ranks with Shah Waliullah as one of the topmost sufis and theologians of Islam. Referring to his role, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written in his Tazkirah that "but for these letters Muslim nobles would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar's heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India."' Later on, when K.A. Nizami published a collection of Shah Walilullah's letters addresed to various Muslim notables including Ahmad Shah Abdaii, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The Maulana wrote back, "I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind." That should give us a measure not only of 'Muslim Revival- ism' but also of many Maulanas who masqueraded as ardent national- ists in order to fight the battle for Islam from within the Indian National Congress.
It is strange that most of the present-day Muslim scholars refuse to cite the actual statements made about Hindus and Hinduism by their heroes such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah while praising them to the skies as saviours of Islam in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Allama lqbal are shining examples of this intriguing silence. The late Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi published two significant books on the history of Islam in India - Ulema in Politics (1972), and The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1977). He has devoted many pages to Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah in both the books. But he has not cited a single sentence written or spoken by the 'great sufis' on how they looked at Hindus and Hinduism. I have no doubt that Nizami has also suppressed those letters of Shah Waliullah in which the latter has poured out his heart about kufr and the kafirs. It is only Professor S.A.A Rizvi who has taken us into the secret chain- bers so to say. Professor Rizvi is a Shia. And the venom which charac- ters like Ahmad Sirhindi have poured on Hindus and Hinduism is quite comparable to that which they poured out on Shias and Shiism.
Professor Rizvi has cited select passages from the original Persian of Ahmad Sirhindi's letters. It is only recently that the letters have be- come available in Urdu translation. Ahmad Sirhindi wrote to many Muslim notables in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. Some of these letters were in strong protest against Akbar's policies vis-a-vis Hindus. One of Sirhindi's patrons was Abdul Rahim Khan-i-Khanan whom many Hindus cherish as a Hindi poet and a devotee of Sri Krishna. It is unfortunate that quite a few recipients of these letters cannot be iden- tified straight away because they are addressed by their titles and not by their names. As the letters are not dated, it is difficult to say whether the bearer of a particular title belonged to the reign of Akbar or Jahangir. The same title was given to several persons in succession. I reproduce below some passages from these significant letters in order to show how the mind of this great sufi functioned. He was the leading light of the Naqshbandi sufi silsild, and the foremost disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah who brought this silsild to India in the reign of Akbar. I may add that the Prophet appeared quite frequently to both Baqi Billah and Ahmad Sirhindi in their dreams or states of trance, and gave guidance to them. Some of his statements are reproduced below:
It is said that the Shariat prospers under the shadow of the sword (al-Shara' tahat al-sait). And the glory of the holy Shariat depends on the kings of Islam ....
Islam and infidelity (kufr) contradict one another. To establish the one means eradicating the other, the coming together of these contradictories being impossible. Therefore, Allah has commanded his Prophet to wage war (jihad) against the infidels, and be harsh with them. The glory is Islam consists in the humiliation and degradation of infidels and infidelity. He who honours the infidels, insults Islam. Honouring (the infidels) does not mean that they are accorded dignity, and made to sit in high places. It means allowing them to be in our company, to sit with them, and talk to them. They should be kept away like dogs. If there is some worldly purpose or work which depends upon them, and cannot be served without their help, they may be con- tacted while keeping in mind all the time that they are not worthy of respect. The best course according to Islam is that they should not be contacted even for worldly purposes. Allah has proclaimed in his Holy Word (Quran) that they are his and his Prophet's enemies. And mixing with these enemies of Allah and his Prophet or showing affection for them, is one of the greatest crimes...
... The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land... What right have the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels') humiliation and degradation. What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Mus- lims. The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam... To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden...
The prayer (goodwill) of these enemies of Islam is false and fruitless. It should never be called for because it can only add to their numbers. If the infidels pray, they will surely seek the intercession of their idols, which is taking things too far... A wise man has said that unless you become a maniac (di-wanah) you cannot attain Islam. The state of this mania means going beyond considerations of profit and loss. Whatever one gains in the service of Islam should suffice..."
Ram and Kirshan whom Hindus worship are insignificant creatures, and have been begotten by their parents... Ram could not protect his wife whom Ravan took away by force. How can he help others?... It is thousands of times shameful that some people should think of Ram and Kirshan as rulers of all the worlds... To think that Ram and Rahman are the same, is extremely foolish. The creator and the creature can never be one... The controller of the Cosmos was never called Ram and Kirshan before, the latter were born. What has hap- pened after their birth that they have come to be equated with Allah, and the worship of Ram and Kirshan is described as the worship of Allah? May Allah save us!
Our prophets who number one lakh and twenty-four thousand have encouraged the created ones to worship the Creator... The gods of the Hindus (on the other hand) have encouraged the people to worship them (the gods) instead... They are themselves misguided, and are leading others astray... See, how the (two) ways are different!
Before that kafir [Guru Arjun Deva] was executed this recluse [meaning himself] had seen in a dream that the reigning king had smashed the skull of idolatry. Indeed, he was a great idolater, and the leader of the idolaters, and the chief of unbelievers. May Allah blast him! The Holy Prophet who is the ruler of religion as well as the world, has cursed the idolaters as follows in some of his prayers - "O Allah, demean their society, create divisions in their ranks, destroy their homes, and get at them like the mighty one."
It is required by religion [Islam] that jihad should be waged against the unbelievers, and that they should be dealt with harshly... it is obligatory on Muislims to acquaint the king of Islam with the evil cus- toms of false religions... Maybe the king has no knowledge of these evil customs... Some Ulama of Islam should come forward, and proclaim the evils present in their (unbelievers') ways... It will be no excuse or, the Day of Judgment that they did not proclaim the tenets of the Shariat because they were not called upon (to do SO) ...
The Shariat prevails under the shadow of the sword (al Shara' tahat al-saij) - according to this (saying), the Shariat can triumph only with the help of mighty kings and their good administration. But for some time past this saying has been languishing, which means inevitably that Islam has become weak. The unbelievers (Hindus) of Hindustan are demolishing mosques, and erecting their own places of worship on the same sites. There was a mosque in the tank of Kurukhet (Kurukshetra) at Thanesar, as also the tomb of some (Muslim) saint, These have been demolished, and a huge gurudwara has been con- structed on the same sites. Besides, the kafirs are holding many celebra- tions of kuft....
It is a thousand pities that the reigning king is a Mussalman, and we recluses find ourselves helpless. There was a time when Islam stood glorified due to the might and prestige of its kings, and the Ulama and the Sufis were honoured and held in high regard. It was with their help that the kings made the Shariat preva. I have heard that one day Amir Taimur was passing through the bazar at Bukhara when, by chance, the inmates of Khwaja Naqshbandi's khdnqah were beating the dust out of the mats used in that place. Because Islam was intact in Amir Taimur, he stopped at that spot and regarded the dust of the khdnqah as musk and sandal. He met a good end."
Therefore, it is necessary that infidelity should be cursed in order to serve the faith (Islam). Cursing unbelief in the heart is the lesser way. The greater way is to curse it in the heart as well as with the body. In short, cursing means to nourish enmity towards enemies of the true faith, whether that enmity is harboured in the heart when there is fear of injury from them (infidels), or it is harboured in the heart as well as served with the body when there is no fear of injury from them. In the opinion of this recluse, there is no greater way to obtain the blessings of Allah than to curse the enemies of the faith (be impatient with them). For Allah himself harbours enmity towards the infidels and infidelity...
Once I went to visit a sick man who was close to death. When I meditated on him, I saw that his heart was layered with darknesses. I intended to remove those darknesses. But he was not yet ready for it... When I meditated more deeply, I discovered that those darknesses had gathered due to his friendship with the infidels. They could not be dis- persed easily. He had to suffer torments of hell before he could get purged of them ...
Every person cherishes some longing in his heart. The only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you again and again to act in this way. Now that you have yourself arrived at that place, and have been appointed to defile and insult that dirty spot and its inhabitants, I feel grateful for this grace (from Allah). There are many who go to this place for pil- grimage. Allah in his kindness has not inflicted this punishment on us. After giving thanks to Allah, you should do your best to ruin that place and their false gods ... whether the idols are carved or uncarved. Let us hope that you will not act slow. Physical weakness and severity of the cold weather, comes in my way. Otherwise, I would have presented myself, and helped you in doing the job. I would have liked to partici- pate in the ceremony and mutilate the stones...
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/sufi.html
Following is a presentation of excerpts taken from Sita Ram Goel's works.
M any Hindus have been misled, mostly by their own soft-headed scholars, to cherish the fond belief that the Sufis were spiritual seekers, and that unlike the Mullahs, they loved Hindu religious lore and liked their Hindu neighbours. The Chistiyya Sufis in particluar have neem chosen for such fulsome praise. The orthodox among the Muslims protest that the Sufis are being slandered. But the Hindus remains convinced that they themselves know better. Professor Aziz Ahmad is a renowned scholar of Islam in India. He clinches the matter in the following words : "In Indian sufism anti-Hindu polemics started with Muinal-din Chisti. Early sufis in Punjab and early Chistis devoted themselves to the task of conversion on a large scale. Missionary activity slowed down under Nizam al-din Auliya, not because of any new concept of eclecticism, but because he held that the Hindus were generally excluded from grace and could not be easily converted to Islam unless they had the opportunity to be in the company of the Muslim saints for considerable time."
Of course, the Auliya who lived in a sprawling khanqah and re- ceived rich gifts out of plunder was convinced that he himself was such a Muslim saint. His temper and teachings can be known easily from die, writings of Amir Khusru, the poet, and Ziauddin Barani, the historian. Both of them were leading disciples of the Auliya. Both of them ex- press a great hatred for Hindus, and regret that the Hanafl school of Islamic Law had come in the way of wiping out completely the "curse of infidelism" from the face Hindustan.
A similar Sufi saint who died a mere 79 years before Waliullah's birth, was Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624). He was always foaming at the mouth against Akbar's policy of peace with the Hindus. He proclaimed himself the Mujaddid-i-alf-i-sdni, 'renovator of the second millennium of Islam'. Besides writing several books, he addressed many letters to several powerful courtiers in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. His MaktiibCtt-i-Imdm RabbanT have been collected and published in three volumes. According to Professor S.A.A. Rizvi, "Shariat can be fos- tered through the sword' was the slogan he raised for his contemporar- ies.
A few specimens should suffice to show the quality of this man's mind. In letter No. 163 he wrote: "The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims... The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in gran- deur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam." In Letter No. 81 he said: "Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jiziya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice." After Guru Mun Deva had been tortured and done to death by Jahangir, he wrote in letter No. 193 that "the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus."
Sirhindi ranks with Shah Waliullah as one of the topmost sufis and theologians of Islam. Referring to his role, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written in his Tazkirah that "but for these letters Muslim nobles would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar's heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India."' Later on, when K.A. Nizami published a collection of Shah Walilullah's letters addresed to various Muslim notables including Ahmad Shah Abdaii, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The Maulana wrote back, "I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind." That should give us a measure not only of 'Muslim Revival- ism' but also of many Maulanas who masqueraded as ardent national- ists in order to fight the battle for Islam from within the Indian National Congress.
It is strange that most of the present-day Muslim scholars refuse to cite the actual statements made about Hindus and Hinduism by their heroes such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah while praising them to the skies as saviours of Islam in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Allama lqbal are shining examples of this intriguing silence. The late Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi published two significant books on the history of Islam in India - Ulema in Politics (1972), and The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1977). He has devoted many pages to Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah in both the books. But he has not cited a single sentence written or spoken by the 'great sufis' on how they looked at Hindus and Hinduism. I have no doubt that Nizami has also suppressed those letters of Shah Waliullah in which the latter has poured out his heart about kufr and the kafirs. It is only Professor S.A.A Rizvi who has taken us into the secret chain- bers so to say. Professor Rizvi is a Shia. And the venom which charac- ters like Ahmad Sirhindi have poured on Hindus and Hinduism is quite comparable to that which they poured out on Shias and Shiism.
Professor Rizvi has cited select passages from the original Persian of Ahmad Sirhindi's letters. It is only recently that the letters have be- come available in Urdu translation. Ahmad Sirhindi wrote to many Muslim notables in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. Some of these letters were in strong protest against Akbar's policies vis-a-vis Hindus. One of Sirhindi's patrons was Abdul Rahim Khan-i-Khanan whom many Hindus cherish as a Hindi poet and a devotee of Sri Krishna. It is unfortunate that quite a few recipients of these letters cannot be iden- tified straight away because they are addressed by their titles and not by their names. As the letters are not dated, it is difficult to say whether the bearer of a particular title belonged to the reign of Akbar or Jahangir. The same title was given to several persons in succession. I reproduce below some passages from these significant letters in order to show how the mind of this great sufi functioned. He was the leading light of the Naqshbandi sufi silsild, and the foremost disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah who brought this silsild to India in the reign of Akbar. I may add that the Prophet appeared quite frequently to both Baqi Billah and Ahmad Sirhindi in their dreams or states of trance, and gave guidance to them. Some of his statements are reproduced below:
It is said that the Shariat prospers under the shadow of the sword (al-Shara' tahat al-sait). And the glory of the holy Shariat depends on the kings of Islam ....
Islam and infidelity (kufr) contradict one another. To establish the one means eradicating the other, the coming together of these contradictories being impossible. Therefore, Allah has commanded his Prophet to wage war (jihad) against the infidels, and be harsh with them. The glory is Islam consists in the humiliation and degradation of infidels and infidelity. He who honours the infidels, insults Islam. Honouring (the infidels) does not mean that they are accorded dignity, and made to sit in high places. It means allowing them to be in our company, to sit with them, and talk to them. They should be kept away like dogs. If there is some worldly purpose or work which depends upon them, and cannot be served without their help, they may be con- tacted while keeping in mind all the time that they are not worthy of respect. The best course according to Islam is that they should not be contacted even for worldly purposes. Allah has proclaimed in his Holy Word (Quran) that they are his and his Prophet's enemies. And mixing with these enemies of Allah and his Prophet or showing affection for them, is one of the greatest crimes...
... The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land... What right have the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels') humiliation and degradation. What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Mus- lims. The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam... To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden...
The prayer (goodwill) of these enemies of Islam is false and fruitless. It should never be called for because it can only add to their numbers. If the infidels pray, they will surely seek the intercession of their idols, which is taking things too far... A wise man has said that unless you become a maniac (di-wanah) you cannot attain Islam. The state of this mania means going beyond considerations of profit and loss. Whatever one gains in the service of Islam should suffice..."
Ram and Kirshan whom Hindus worship are insignificant creatures, and have been begotten by their parents... Ram could not protect his wife whom Ravan took away by force. How can he help others?... It is thousands of times shameful that some people should think of Ram and Kirshan as rulers of all the worlds... To think that Ram and Rahman are the same, is extremely foolish. The creator and the creature can never be one... The controller of the Cosmos was never called Ram and Kirshan before, the latter were born. What has hap- pened after their birth that they have come to be equated with Allah, and the worship of Ram and Kirshan is described as the worship of Allah? May Allah save us!
Our prophets who number one lakh and twenty-four thousand have encouraged the created ones to worship the Creator... The gods of the Hindus (on the other hand) have encouraged the people to worship them (the gods) instead... They are themselves misguided, and are leading others astray... See, how the (two) ways are different!
Before that kafir [Guru Arjun Deva] was executed this recluse [meaning himself] had seen in a dream that the reigning king had smashed the skull of idolatry. Indeed, he was a great idolater, and the leader of the idolaters, and the chief of unbelievers. May Allah blast him! The Holy Prophet who is the ruler of religion as well as the world, has cursed the idolaters as follows in some of his prayers - "O Allah, demean their society, create divisions in their ranks, destroy their homes, and get at them like the mighty one."
It is required by religion [Islam] that jihad should be waged against the unbelievers, and that they should be dealt with harshly... it is obligatory on Muislims to acquaint the king of Islam with the evil cus- toms of false religions... Maybe the king has no knowledge of these evil customs... Some Ulama of Islam should come forward, and proclaim the evils present in their (unbelievers') ways... It will be no excuse or, the Day of Judgment that they did not proclaim the tenets of the Shariat because they were not called upon (to do SO) ...
The Shariat prevails under the shadow of the sword (al Shara' tahat al-saij) - according to this (saying), the Shariat can triumph only with the help of mighty kings and their good administration. But for some time past this saying has been languishing, which means inevitably that Islam has become weak. The unbelievers (Hindus) of Hindustan are demolishing mosques, and erecting their own places of worship on the same sites. There was a mosque in the tank of Kurukhet (Kurukshetra) at Thanesar, as also the tomb of some (Muslim) saint, These have been demolished, and a huge gurudwara has been con- structed on the same sites. Besides, the kafirs are holding many celebra- tions of kuft....
It is a thousand pities that the reigning king is a Mussalman, and we recluses find ourselves helpless. There was a time when Islam stood glorified due to the might and prestige of its kings, and the Ulama and the Sufis were honoured and held in high regard. It was with their help that the kings made the Shariat preva. I have heard that one day Amir Taimur was passing through the bazar at Bukhara when, by chance, the inmates of Khwaja Naqshbandi's khdnqah were beating the dust out of the mats used in that place. Because Islam was intact in Amir Taimur, he stopped at that spot and regarded the dust of the khdnqah as musk and sandal. He met a good end."
Therefore, it is necessary that infidelity should be cursed in order to serve the faith (Islam). Cursing unbelief in the heart is the lesser way. The greater way is to curse it in the heart as well as with the body. In short, cursing means to nourish enmity towards enemies of the true faith, whether that enmity is harboured in the heart when there is fear of injury from them (infidels), or it is harboured in the heart as well as served with the body when there is no fear of injury from them. In the opinion of this recluse, there is no greater way to obtain the blessings of Allah than to curse the enemies of the faith (be impatient with them). For Allah himself harbours enmity towards the infidels and infidelity...
Once I went to visit a sick man who was close to death. When I meditated on him, I saw that his heart was layered with darknesses. I intended to remove those darknesses. But he was not yet ready for it... When I meditated more deeply, I discovered that those darknesses had gathered due to his friendship with the infidels. They could not be dis- persed easily. He had to suffer torments of hell before he could get purged of them ...
Every person cherishes some longing in his heart. The only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you again and again to act in this way. Now that you have yourself arrived at that place, and have been appointed to defile and insult that dirty spot and its inhabitants, I feel grateful for this grace (from Allah). There are many who go to this place for pil- grimage. Allah in his kindness has not inflicted this punishment on us. After giving thanks to Allah, you should do your best to ruin that place and their false gods ... whether the idols are carved or uncarved. Let us hope that you will not act slow. Physical weakness and severity of the cold weather, comes in my way. Otherwise, I would have presented myself, and helped you in doing the job. I would have liked to partici- pate in the ceremony and mutilate the stones...
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/sufi.html
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar4.html
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part IV
I n my last article, I articulated the three main motivations of Mohammed's heinous actions. To reiterate, these reasons were:
His fanatic greed for all the wealth that had been created by the blood, sweat and toil of the Jews
His maniacal craving for power at any cost. The Jews were the biggest obstacle in his plan to subjugate all of Medinah, so they had to be removed, by any means possible
His fear of all other religions. Mohammed was a delusional Megalomaniac, meaning he believed that he was the Supreme Ruler of the world. Anything that threatened this sick fantasy of his, had to be exterminated. Since, the religion of the Jews rejected his pathetic claims to Divine rule, they were the targeted victims in Medinah, just as the Polytheistic Arabs had been his victims in Mecca.
As the frequency of his criminal raids and attacks on Jews, Christians and Pagan Arabs increased to a fever pitch, Mohammed's megalomania began evidencing itself more openly. He started implementing his systematic objectives of completely suppressing all opposition around Medinah and plundering as much wealth as he could get his hands on, in order to support his final thrust of attacking Mecca.
11) Massacre of Jewish Tribesmen
Date: February 628 A.D
Place: Outskirts of Medinah
Victims: Banu Sa'd Tribe, Thirty Jews from Khaybar
Mohammed was forcing all the tribes around Medinah to make alliances with him and consider him as the primary power in the area. Any tribe who refused to bow down to the Muslim's terrorist tactics, was immediately subjected to extreme torture and death. Banu Sa'd was a peaceful tribe which was allied with the Jewish Tribesmen of the prosperous oasis of Khaybar. Mohammed was pathological in his fear of opposition. Having murdered all the Jews in and around Medinah, who could pose a potential threat to his rabid bid for power, the Prophet of Islam now was turning his attention to the only possible threat in the area, Khaybar. The Jews of Khaybar had remained neutral when the Meccans had planned a counterattack on Medinah. This enraged Mohammed all the more and fuelled his savage desire to destroy them and tribes like the Banu Sa'd that was linked to them. He sent out a terrorist group of assassins led by Ali. The expedition massacred hundreds of innocent Banu Sa'd tribespeople. They raped all the women and children and stole 500 camels and 2000 goats and sheep. A unit of thirty murderous assassins were hand-picked by the Epitome of Mercy, to infiltrate the sorrounding areas of Khaybar as well. They disguised themselves as Emissaries of PEACE from Mohammed. The Jewish Leader, Usayr Ibn Razim agreed in the interest of peace to accompany them back to the Prophet. He set out with thirty of his men, following the Muslims. As soon as they were out of sight of Khaybar, the muslims fell upon the innocent and hapless Jews and chopped them into pieces. Upon returning Mohammed himself came out to greet his assassins. He embraced the leader of the expedition and exclaimed " It was Allah surely, who saved you from the company of the oppressive non-believers". The above example should amply demonstrate what a man of honour, the great Mohammed was. Indeed it can only be a truly pious person who would trick people with an offer of peace and cold-bloodedly MURDER them. Mohammed's intense hatred for the thorns in his flesh, namely the Jews, began manifesting itself in the spate of vitriolic Revelations, that he conjured up to justify his atrocities on the Jews.
Koran 5:64
"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they ACCURSED for the blasphemy that they utter. Nay, Both his hands (Allah's) are widely outstretched: He giveth and Spendeth as he Pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to Thee (Mohammed) from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed ENMITY and HATRED till the day of Judgement. Every time they kindle the fire of War, Allah doth extinguish it; But they ever strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not people who do mischief."
The bit about Jews saying "Allah's hand is tied up" is referring to their protest at the fact that Mohammed and the Muslims had taken control of all the wealth. The Jews who had initially helped the Muslims, when they had nothing, now had every morsel of food snatched from them. The sarcastic comment therefore referred to the fact that it seemed like Allah's hands were tied when it came to providing even a meagre sustenance for the starving, oppressed Jews, at the mercy of the pious band of criminals of Allah. But even more pathetic is Mohammed's claim that the reason the Jews were acting so damned rebellious and obstinately opposing the Muslims, was that they were JEALOUS that Allah had hand-picked Mohammed to get his murderous revelations. This is laughably incredulous and mortifying considering the fact that Mohammed pieced together so many of his Koranic revelations, by distoring and twisting parts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Even more repugnant is the fact that a Prophet claiming to be the Messenger of a supposedly all beneficient and Merciful God, wishes nothing but ENMITY, HATRED, EVIL and CURSES on the Jews. Do such emotions sound like the wishes of a religious figure that preaches PEACE??? The Prophet of Islam was nothing but a wellspring of malice, hatred and blind poisonous jealousy.
12) Murder of Bedouins in and Meccans on the road to Syria
Date: January- February 628 A.D.
Place: Dumat-Al-Jandal, a trading center enroute to Syria, The Well of Qarda atNejed
Victims: Bedouin women, Meccan Caravan
Zayd Ibn Haritha, the adopted son of the Prophet who divorced his wife, so that his Good Old Dad could have the pleasure, was sent to attack traders in Syria. The Bedouins who were also trading at the outpost, got wind of the Muslims nefarious plans, took up arms and drove away the would-be raiders. Zayd was furious that his plans had been foiled so successfully. He targeted an elderly woman of the same Bedouin Tribe, because she exerted considerable influence and wealth. On a dark moonless night, the aged 90 year old woman was grabbed ruthlessly from her tent. She was tied up and trussed like a chicken and brought back to the Muslim camp. Upon arrival she was gang raped and molested by the pious followers of Allah. She was whipped and beaten to an almost lifeless pulp. The sadistic impulses of the Muslims however did not end there, the night's entertainment was not done yet. The eerie desert night, suddenly resounded with the cheers and throaty cries of bloodlust as the Bedouin matron's arms and legs were tied to four camels. Zayd and three others of Mohammed's select group, then climbed onto each camel and drove each one into opposite directions. As the wrinkled body was ripped apart in a blur of torn and bloodied flesh, cries of delight echoed all around. Such were the entertainment activities of the Peace loving followers of Allah.
Soon after at the Well of Qarda in Nejed, Zayd along with 170 men attacked a hapless trade caravan of Meccans who were returning from Syria. They massacred most of the traders and took two of the men prisoner. But most important of all, the Muslims grabbed a sizeable booty from this cold blooded massacre. They plundered more than a hundred thousand dirhems from this raid. It is no wonder then, that Zayd Ibn Haritha was an "Exalted Martyr". According to Mohammed himself "And Zayd, the Freedman of Muhammad, counted his freedom as naught compared with the service of Muhammad and Islam."
All of these activities, were of course, motivated by the divine words of Wisdom, spoken by the Messenger of Allah.
Koran 5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land Is: Execution, or Crucifixion, or the Cutting and Removing Off of hands and feet from OPPOSITE sides, or exile from the land: That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."
The gruesome spectacle of the Bedouin woman being torn apart, now makes sense. The act was DIRECTLY sanctioned by Allah himself in this Revelation. The plunder and and massacre of the Meccans too, were completely pious Islamic acts as the following verse evidences:
Koran 5:33
" And many gains will they (Pious Muslims) acquire besides, and Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom. Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall Acquire and he has given you these beforehand; and he has restrained the hands of Men from you; so that it may be a sign for the Believers and that he may guide you to a Straight Path. And other gains there are, which are not within your power now, but which Allah has compassed for you and Allah has Power over all things."
Allah is giving his kind blessings to the merciful and pure Muslims, to go out and PLUNDER and acquire as many "Gains" as their hearts desire. But Allah's bribes are far more quantitative, he is generous to a fault and will not stop there. Allah is giving his beloved Muslims assurance, that there will be Far more Wealth to plunder in the future. Not only that, Allah will "restrain the hands" of Men from harming the Muslims, so that they can keep on raping, pillaging and murdering throughout the land. Allah surely knows how to give Muslims a good deal in exchange for all the blood that they will shed for him and the messenger of Peace.
13) Slaughter of all Jews in Khaybar
Date: September 628 A.D
Place: Khaybar and surrounding areas
Victims: Over 500 Jews of Khaybar
Khaybar was the wealthiest Oasis in the Hejaz. The settlement of neutral Jews who inhabited the Oasis were known for their business acumen. Over the years, they had by their own efforts, sweat and toil converted the small Oasis into a flourishing Trade Center of agricultural goods. They were renowned for their extreme generosity, good naturedness and peacability. In other words, the small jewel of a town was like the juiciest piece of meat, which a Vulture like Mohammed could never resist. Mohammed could no longer control his slavering desire to attack Khaybar. His immense greed for the fabulous wealth of the Oasis had overwhelmed him. He had been systematically eradicatiing all the potential tribes that could support Khaybar. Allies of the Khaybar Jews, like the Bedouin Tribe of Ghatafan and the Jewish Tribe of Banu S'ad had been cold bloodedly eliminated and exhorted so that Khaybar would be without friends. The Prophet set out with 1600 men and laid siege to the Oasis. Although greatly outnumbered, the brave Jews fought bravely and staved off the bloodthirsty Mob of Muslims, for over 14 days. In the end the sheer disadvantage of numbers and the starving state of their children forced the Jews to surrender. They emerged with all their, weapons, foodstuffs and wealth, pleading only for the lives of themselves and their families. Instead the Exalted Messenger of Peace, instructed his army to do exactly as they pleased. The frenzied Muslims pounced upon the helpless Jews and murdered every man they could lay their hands on. Women and children were raped brutally and repeatedly . The Prophet led the way as usual. His eye had fallen upon the most beautiful captive in Khaybar, a Jewess called Safia Bint Huyay. As she stood there traumatised and anguished at having just witnessed her father and fiancee being hacked to pieces, the Prophet threw his cloak on her to claim as his booty. Minutes later he savagely consummated his "marriage" to her in a sand dune with the blood and gore of Jihad still covering him, even Saifya's father's blood, no doubt. There was no time for a sponsor, dowry, sending out invitations, or a wedding feast, in fact, Muhammed forgot his own law of waiting until her next monthly period had passed. Today we call that rape, but according to the Prophet of Allah, he was just securing her with the bonds of "holy Matrimony". Indeed the Prophet had committed himself to saving widows in need by marrying them! The remaining women and children who were rounded up were traded in the slave market or retained to be brought up as brainwashed sex slaves, professing Islam.
Allah's Divine Injunctions had naturally preceded the carnage at Khaybar. As usual the Merciful Allah condoned the slaughter, plunder and rapine committed by Mohammed and his band. :
Koran 33:26
"And those of the People of the Book (Jews) who Aided Them (Meccans) - Allah did take them from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that Some Ye Slew and Some Ye made Prisoners. And he made you heirs of their Lands, their Houses, and their Goods. And of a Land, which Ye had not frequented before (Khaybar) and Allah has Power over all things."
Koran 2:222
"They ask Thee concerning Women's courses. Say to them: "They are a Hurt and a Pollution: So keep away from women in their courses (menstrual periods) and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they are purified, Ye may approach them in any manner, time or place. Ordained for you by Allah, for Allah loves those who turn to him constantly and he loves those who keep themselves Pure and Clean."
As mentioned above, Mohammed himself had received this "Revelation" that Muslims shouldn't be having sex with women whose monthly period had not passed.
Mohammed of course had outright violated the above rule himself, when he raped Safiya in a beautiful Islamic Wedding ceremony at Khaybar. The Prophet of Wisdom was in a fix. He had no justification for violation of a rule, that he himself had claimed was set by Allah. The only solution was of course, the timely production of some Revelation that would save his ass. Allah in his typical meek and patient manner, was only too happy to oblige. Out spewed two Verses, directly from the quivering Holy Messenger's mouth.
Koran 66:1-2
"O Prophet! Why holdest Thou to be forbidden That which Allah has made Lawful to Thee? Thou seekest to Please Thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ORDAINED for you (Mohammed), the DISSOLUTION OF YOUR OATHS, in some cases and Allah is your Protector; and he is full of Knowledge and Wisdom."
Not to mention Allah exhibits an unhealthy pattern of complying with Mohammed's wishes and providing verses that bail him out each time.
With the Conquest of Khaybar, Mohammed was now in exactly the position he desired. He had subjugated all the Tribes around Medinah. He had massacred any significant opposition that may have threatened him, and he had plundered enough wealth to win him hosts of converts willing to kill anything for Booty. He was poised at the threshold of carrying out his heart's dearest desire; that of attacking and conquering Mecca. But, he would learn his lessons before the realisation of those dreams. In my next article, I will expound further on these lessons and events.
The Works "The Glorious Quran" by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, "The Meaning of the Glorious Quran" by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "Mohammed" by Maxime Rodinson, and "Muhammad" by Martin Lings have been used to compose this article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part IV
I n my last article, I articulated the three main motivations of Mohammed's heinous actions. To reiterate, these reasons were:
His fanatic greed for all the wealth that had been created by the blood, sweat and toil of the Jews
His maniacal craving for power at any cost. The Jews were the biggest obstacle in his plan to subjugate all of Medinah, so they had to be removed, by any means possible
His fear of all other religions. Mohammed was a delusional Megalomaniac, meaning he believed that he was the Supreme Ruler of the world. Anything that threatened this sick fantasy of his, had to be exterminated. Since, the religion of the Jews rejected his pathetic claims to Divine rule, they were the targeted victims in Medinah, just as the Polytheistic Arabs had been his victims in Mecca.
As the frequency of his criminal raids and attacks on Jews, Christians and Pagan Arabs increased to a fever pitch, Mohammed's megalomania began evidencing itself more openly. He started implementing his systematic objectives of completely suppressing all opposition around Medinah and plundering as much wealth as he could get his hands on, in order to support his final thrust of attacking Mecca.
11) Massacre of Jewish Tribesmen
Date: February 628 A.D
Place: Outskirts of Medinah
Victims: Banu Sa'd Tribe, Thirty Jews from Khaybar
Mohammed was forcing all the tribes around Medinah to make alliances with him and consider him as the primary power in the area. Any tribe who refused to bow down to the Muslim's terrorist tactics, was immediately subjected to extreme torture and death. Banu Sa'd was a peaceful tribe which was allied with the Jewish Tribesmen of the prosperous oasis of Khaybar. Mohammed was pathological in his fear of opposition. Having murdered all the Jews in and around Medinah, who could pose a potential threat to his rabid bid for power, the Prophet of Islam now was turning his attention to the only possible threat in the area, Khaybar. The Jews of Khaybar had remained neutral when the Meccans had planned a counterattack on Medinah. This enraged Mohammed all the more and fuelled his savage desire to destroy them and tribes like the Banu Sa'd that was linked to them. He sent out a terrorist group of assassins led by Ali. The expedition massacred hundreds of innocent Banu Sa'd tribespeople. They raped all the women and children and stole 500 camels and 2000 goats and sheep. A unit of thirty murderous assassins were hand-picked by the Epitome of Mercy, to infiltrate the sorrounding areas of Khaybar as well. They disguised themselves as Emissaries of PEACE from Mohammed. The Jewish Leader, Usayr Ibn Razim agreed in the interest of peace to accompany them back to the Prophet. He set out with thirty of his men, following the Muslims. As soon as they were out of sight of Khaybar, the muslims fell upon the innocent and hapless Jews and chopped them into pieces. Upon returning Mohammed himself came out to greet his assassins. He embraced the leader of the expedition and exclaimed " It was Allah surely, who saved you from the company of the oppressive non-believers". The above example should amply demonstrate what a man of honour, the great Mohammed was. Indeed it can only be a truly pious person who would trick people with an offer of peace and cold-bloodedly MURDER them. Mohammed's intense hatred for the thorns in his flesh, namely the Jews, began manifesting itself in the spate of vitriolic Revelations, that he conjured up to justify his atrocities on the Jews.
Koran 5:64
"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they ACCURSED for the blasphemy that they utter. Nay, Both his hands (Allah's) are widely outstretched: He giveth and Spendeth as he Pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to Thee (Mohammed) from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed ENMITY and HATRED till the day of Judgement. Every time they kindle the fire of War, Allah doth extinguish it; But they ever strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not people who do mischief."
The bit about Jews saying "Allah's hand is tied up" is referring to their protest at the fact that Mohammed and the Muslims had taken control of all the wealth. The Jews who had initially helped the Muslims, when they had nothing, now had every morsel of food snatched from them. The sarcastic comment therefore referred to the fact that it seemed like Allah's hands were tied when it came to providing even a meagre sustenance for the starving, oppressed Jews, at the mercy of the pious band of criminals of Allah. But even more pathetic is Mohammed's claim that the reason the Jews were acting so damned rebellious and obstinately opposing the Muslims, was that they were JEALOUS that Allah had hand-picked Mohammed to get his murderous revelations. This is laughably incredulous and mortifying considering the fact that Mohammed pieced together so many of his Koranic revelations, by distoring and twisting parts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Even more repugnant is the fact that a Prophet claiming to be the Messenger of a supposedly all beneficient and Merciful God, wishes nothing but ENMITY, HATRED, EVIL and CURSES on the Jews. Do such emotions sound like the wishes of a religious figure that preaches PEACE??? The Prophet of Islam was nothing but a wellspring of malice, hatred and blind poisonous jealousy.
12) Murder of Bedouins in and Meccans on the road to Syria
Date: January- February 628 A.D.
Place: Dumat-Al-Jandal, a trading center enroute to Syria, The Well of Qarda atNejed
Victims: Bedouin women, Meccan Caravan
Zayd Ibn Haritha, the adopted son of the Prophet who divorced his wife, so that his Good Old Dad could have the pleasure, was sent to attack traders in Syria. The Bedouins who were also trading at the outpost, got wind of the Muslims nefarious plans, took up arms and drove away the would-be raiders. Zayd was furious that his plans had been foiled so successfully. He targeted an elderly woman of the same Bedouin Tribe, because she exerted considerable influence and wealth. On a dark moonless night, the aged 90 year old woman was grabbed ruthlessly from her tent. She was tied up and trussed like a chicken and brought back to the Muslim camp. Upon arrival she was gang raped and molested by the pious followers of Allah. She was whipped and beaten to an almost lifeless pulp. The sadistic impulses of the Muslims however did not end there, the night's entertainment was not done yet. The eerie desert night, suddenly resounded with the cheers and throaty cries of bloodlust as the Bedouin matron's arms and legs were tied to four camels. Zayd and three others of Mohammed's select group, then climbed onto each camel and drove each one into opposite directions. As the wrinkled body was ripped apart in a blur of torn and bloodied flesh, cries of delight echoed all around. Such were the entertainment activities of the Peace loving followers of Allah.
Soon after at the Well of Qarda in Nejed, Zayd along with 170 men attacked a hapless trade caravan of Meccans who were returning from Syria. They massacred most of the traders and took two of the men prisoner. But most important of all, the Muslims grabbed a sizeable booty from this cold blooded massacre. They plundered more than a hundred thousand dirhems from this raid. It is no wonder then, that Zayd Ibn Haritha was an "Exalted Martyr". According to Mohammed himself "And Zayd, the Freedman of Muhammad, counted his freedom as naught compared with the service of Muhammad and Islam."
All of these activities, were of course, motivated by the divine words of Wisdom, spoken by the Messenger of Allah.
Koran 5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land Is: Execution, or Crucifixion, or the Cutting and Removing Off of hands and feet from OPPOSITE sides, or exile from the land: That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."
The gruesome spectacle of the Bedouin woman being torn apart, now makes sense. The act was DIRECTLY sanctioned by Allah himself in this Revelation. The plunder and and massacre of the Meccans too, were completely pious Islamic acts as the following verse evidences:
Koran 5:33
" And many gains will they (Pious Muslims) acquire besides, and Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom. Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall Acquire and he has given you these beforehand; and he has restrained the hands of Men from you; so that it may be a sign for the Believers and that he may guide you to a Straight Path. And other gains there are, which are not within your power now, but which Allah has compassed for you and Allah has Power over all things."
Allah is giving his kind blessings to the merciful and pure Muslims, to go out and PLUNDER and acquire as many "Gains" as their hearts desire. But Allah's bribes are far more quantitative, he is generous to a fault and will not stop there. Allah is giving his beloved Muslims assurance, that there will be Far more Wealth to plunder in the future. Not only that, Allah will "restrain the hands" of Men from harming the Muslims, so that they can keep on raping, pillaging and murdering throughout the land. Allah surely knows how to give Muslims a good deal in exchange for all the blood that they will shed for him and the messenger of Peace.
13) Slaughter of all Jews in Khaybar
Date: September 628 A.D
Place: Khaybar and surrounding areas
Victims: Over 500 Jews of Khaybar
Khaybar was the wealthiest Oasis in the Hejaz. The settlement of neutral Jews who inhabited the Oasis were known for their business acumen. Over the years, they had by their own efforts, sweat and toil converted the small Oasis into a flourishing Trade Center of agricultural goods. They were renowned for their extreme generosity, good naturedness and peacability. In other words, the small jewel of a town was like the juiciest piece of meat, which a Vulture like Mohammed could never resist. Mohammed could no longer control his slavering desire to attack Khaybar. His immense greed for the fabulous wealth of the Oasis had overwhelmed him. He had been systematically eradicatiing all the potential tribes that could support Khaybar. Allies of the Khaybar Jews, like the Bedouin Tribe of Ghatafan and the Jewish Tribe of Banu S'ad had been cold bloodedly eliminated and exhorted so that Khaybar would be without friends. The Prophet set out with 1600 men and laid siege to the Oasis. Although greatly outnumbered, the brave Jews fought bravely and staved off the bloodthirsty Mob of Muslims, for over 14 days. In the end the sheer disadvantage of numbers and the starving state of their children forced the Jews to surrender. They emerged with all their, weapons, foodstuffs and wealth, pleading only for the lives of themselves and their families. Instead the Exalted Messenger of Peace, instructed his army to do exactly as they pleased. The frenzied Muslims pounced upon the helpless Jews and murdered every man they could lay their hands on. Women and children were raped brutally and repeatedly . The Prophet led the way as usual. His eye had fallen upon the most beautiful captive in Khaybar, a Jewess called Safia Bint Huyay. As she stood there traumatised and anguished at having just witnessed her father and fiancee being hacked to pieces, the Prophet threw his cloak on her to claim as his booty. Minutes later he savagely consummated his "marriage" to her in a sand dune with the blood and gore of Jihad still covering him, even Saifya's father's blood, no doubt. There was no time for a sponsor, dowry, sending out invitations, or a wedding feast, in fact, Muhammed forgot his own law of waiting until her next monthly period had passed. Today we call that rape, but according to the Prophet of Allah, he was just securing her with the bonds of "holy Matrimony". Indeed the Prophet had committed himself to saving widows in need by marrying them! The remaining women and children who were rounded up were traded in the slave market or retained to be brought up as brainwashed sex slaves, professing Islam.
Allah's Divine Injunctions had naturally preceded the carnage at Khaybar. As usual the Merciful Allah condoned the slaughter, plunder and rapine committed by Mohammed and his band. :
Koran 33:26
"And those of the People of the Book (Jews) who Aided Them (Meccans) - Allah did take them from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that Some Ye Slew and Some Ye made Prisoners. And he made you heirs of their Lands, their Houses, and their Goods. And of a Land, which Ye had not frequented before (Khaybar) and Allah has Power over all things."
Koran 2:222
"They ask Thee concerning Women's courses. Say to them: "They are a Hurt and a Pollution: So keep away from women in their courses (menstrual periods) and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they are purified, Ye may approach them in any manner, time or place. Ordained for you by Allah, for Allah loves those who turn to him constantly and he loves those who keep themselves Pure and Clean."
As mentioned above, Mohammed himself had received this "Revelation" that Muslims shouldn't be having sex with women whose monthly period had not passed.
Mohammed of course had outright violated the above rule himself, when he raped Safiya in a beautiful Islamic Wedding ceremony at Khaybar. The Prophet of Wisdom was in a fix. He had no justification for violation of a rule, that he himself had claimed was set by Allah. The only solution was of course, the timely production of some Revelation that would save his ass. Allah in his typical meek and patient manner, was only too happy to oblige. Out spewed two Verses, directly from the quivering Holy Messenger's mouth.
Koran 66:1-2
"O Prophet! Why holdest Thou to be forbidden That which Allah has made Lawful to Thee? Thou seekest to Please Thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ORDAINED for you (Mohammed), the DISSOLUTION OF YOUR OATHS, in some cases and Allah is your Protector; and he is full of Knowledge and Wisdom."
Not to mention Allah exhibits an unhealthy pattern of complying with Mohammed's wishes and providing verses that bail him out each time.
With the Conquest of Khaybar, Mohammed was now in exactly the position he desired. He had subjugated all the Tribes around Medinah. He had massacred any significant opposition that may have threatened him, and he had plundered enough wealth to win him hosts of converts willing to kill anything for Booty. He was poised at the threshold of carrying out his heart's dearest desire; that of attacking and conquering Mecca. But, he would learn his lessons before the realisation of those dreams. In my next article, I will expound further on these lessons and events.
The Works "The Glorious Quran" by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, "The Meaning of the Glorious Quran" by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "Mohammed" by Maxime Rodinson, and "Muhammad" by Martin Lings have been used to compose this article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jihadwatch's Fitzgerald: Muslims and Hindus
Fitzgerald: Muslims and Hindus
Gandhi was unacceptably wrong about a number of things -- his advice to Jews to mimic Indians in their campaign with the British, and to offer "passive resistance" to Hitler, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves, takes the cake. But he was also remarkably ill-informed about the Muslim threat, the deep and permanent threat, to the "wounded civilization" of India (in Naipaul's phrase -- a civilization "wounded" by the centuries of Muslim rule, its cruelty, its mass murdering). And he certainly gave Muslims the benefit of every doubt.
After Partition, Muslims attacked Hindus, and Hindus fought back. There was an exchange of populations, but many tens of millions of Muslims remained in India, while a few million Hindus remained in West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). But because of the constant discrimination against, and persecution of, Hindus (as well as of all other non-Muslims), the percentage of the population of West Pakistan that is now Hindu has dropped from 15% to 1.4%, and from 35% to less than 8%.
The much smaller population of Buddhists in Bangladesh has also been persecuted, and of course Christians in both Pakistan and Bangladesh have a terrible time. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentage of the population climbs steadily up, and no Muslims appear to be fleeing India to go to Pakistan or Bangladesh. So there continues to be population movement, but not population exchange. Hindus (and other non-Muslims) continue to be subject to Muslim terrorism and to Muslim demands, each demand more outrageous than the next, with no sign that Muslims are willing to own up to what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. Nor is there any sign that they are going to own up to the incompatibility of Islam, and what Islam inculcates, with the beliefs, or the legal and political institutions, of Hindus, or Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or anyone at all who is non-Muslim and refuses to yield to the Sharia and to dominance by Muslims.
Eventually, and inevitably, Hindus and others upon whom war has been made, will react. And they will not stop until they have done to Muslims what Muslims have been doing to them, and have pushed many of them into Pakistan and Bangladesh, in a mirror image of the Hindus formerly pushed out of those places during the past half-century since Partition. It is doubtful that in the rest of the world there would be much, or any, sympathy for the Muslims dealt with in this matter. Infidels need not inure themselves, need not endure forever what has become or is becoming an intolerable situation because of the ideology of Islam.
Yet on the other hand, if they are put in this position, Muslims may win worldwide sympathy, for Muslim propagandists and their non-Muslim supporters, have successfully prevented the outside world, and even many of those who may be Hindis or of Hindu origin, from fully understanding what Muslim rule did to India, beginning with the 60-70 million murdered Hindus.
It is unfortunate that thoroughly modern young Indians or Indian-Americans or Indian-English are uninterested in this matter, or have allowed themselves not to become interested. They wish to signal to the outside world how thoroughly devoid of what they see as silly, nearly troglodytic attitudes of Hindutva, that they (those thoroughly modern Hindus) cannot be accused of such. And to prove it, they will always denounce Hindu nationalists, no matter how reasonable those nationalists might be (they are not all Hitler-praising like a certain politician named Thackeray -- no relation to Becky Sharpe's creator). Some of those young Indians apparently find it unseemly to be too interested in the pre-Islamic history of India (they might start with A. L. Basham's "The Wonder that was India"). And in the United States, those of Hindu descent may, far from India, and even farther from understanding the past and present and future menace of Islam as an ideology, have Muslim friends -- and, as so many do, they may end up confusing personal charm or even kindness or even romantic entanglements with a Muslim for the sweet reasonableness of Islam itself. And this in turn can lead to a tacit whitewashing of Muslim history.
Were I an Indian-American, I would like to find out about what Muslim rule meant for India. Why did Ibn Battuta report, with such bland indifference, on the mass-murders and enslavement of whole villages of Hindus in his "Rihla"? Why was it left to Sir William Jones, and a group of Englishmen, to rediscover or help to rediscover India's Hindu past? What is the real origin of India's Muslims and of Pakistanis -- was it that Islam was simply so wonderful and attractive, or where there other reasons for conversion to Islam? How many Hindu victims were there of Islam in India? What happened to all the temples? (Hint: see the list compiled by Sita Ram Goel). What did the India's own historians write about the Muslim invaders and rulers, as for example in the 2-volume anthology edited, in the 19th century (and recently re-published) by Dowson and Elliott? Why have such historians as K. S. Lal and Sarkar not received their due in the outside world -- or even on Indian campuses? How were Sikhs treated by Muslims, including the most important early figures? What happens to Hindus (and Sikhs) in Pakistan today? In Bangladesh? In Kashmir? How much Muslim violence and terrorism takes place in India, and is never reported outside of India? What happens to Hindus in Amsterdam? In London, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bradford, at the hands of their Muslim neighbors -- anything? Nothing?
Why do Indian-Americans tend to uncritically accept Muslim propaganda, and denounce -- without having read K. S. Lal, or Sita Ram Goel, or Koenraad Elst, or Sir Jahundath Sarkar, or a hundred others who have written -- any expression of interest in, or sympathy for, Hinduism and the Hindu past as something fit for only the most reactionary supporter of Hindutva?
Why is it only the most extraordinary and self-assured observers of Indian descent, such as V. S. Naipaul, who are capable of taking Islam's measure, without any fear of being labelled "Hindutva" fanatics?
These are questions to be asked, if not in Hindu temples and Sikh gundwaras, then privately, to oneself, just before ordering on-line a few books, to start with, by K. S. Lal.
And don't stop there.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022949.php
Gandhi was unacceptably wrong about a number of things -- his advice to Jews to mimic Indians in their campaign with the British, and to offer "passive resistance" to Hitler, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves, takes the cake. But he was also remarkably ill-informed about the Muslim threat, the deep and permanent threat, to the "wounded civilization" of India (in Naipaul's phrase -- a civilization "wounded" by the centuries of Muslim rule, its cruelty, its mass murdering). And he certainly gave Muslims the benefit of every doubt.
After Partition, Muslims attacked Hindus, and Hindus fought back. There was an exchange of populations, but many tens of millions of Muslims remained in India, while a few million Hindus remained in West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). But because of the constant discrimination against, and persecution of, Hindus (as well as of all other non-Muslims), the percentage of the population of West Pakistan that is now Hindu has dropped from 15% to 1.4%, and from 35% to less than 8%.
The much smaller population of Buddhists in Bangladesh has also been persecuted, and of course Christians in both Pakistan and Bangladesh have a terrible time. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentage of the population climbs steadily up, and no Muslims appear to be fleeing India to go to Pakistan or Bangladesh. So there continues to be population movement, but not population exchange. Hindus (and other non-Muslims) continue to be subject to Muslim terrorism and to Muslim demands, each demand more outrageous than the next, with no sign that Muslims are willing to own up to what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. Nor is there any sign that they are going to own up to the incompatibility of Islam, and what Islam inculcates, with the beliefs, or the legal and political institutions, of Hindus, or Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or anyone at all who is non-Muslim and refuses to yield to the Sharia and to dominance by Muslims.
Eventually, and inevitably, Hindus and others upon whom war has been made, will react. And they will not stop until they have done to Muslims what Muslims have been doing to them, and have pushed many of them into Pakistan and Bangladesh, in a mirror image of the Hindus formerly pushed out of those places during the past half-century since Partition. It is doubtful that in the rest of the world there would be much, or any, sympathy for the Muslims dealt with in this matter. Infidels need not inure themselves, need not endure forever what has become or is becoming an intolerable situation because of the ideology of Islam.
Yet on the other hand, if they are put in this position, Muslims may win worldwide sympathy, for Muslim propagandists and their non-Muslim supporters, have successfully prevented the outside world, and even many of those who may be Hindis or of Hindu origin, from fully understanding what Muslim rule did to India, beginning with the 60-70 million murdered Hindus.
It is unfortunate that thoroughly modern young Indians or Indian-Americans or Indian-English are uninterested in this matter, or have allowed themselves not to become interested. They wish to signal to the outside world how thoroughly devoid of what they see as silly, nearly troglodytic attitudes of Hindutva, that they (those thoroughly modern Hindus) cannot be accused of such. And to prove it, they will always denounce Hindu nationalists, no matter how reasonable those nationalists might be (they are not all Hitler-praising like a certain politician named Thackeray -- no relation to Becky Sharpe's creator). Some of those young Indians apparently find it unseemly to be too interested in the pre-Islamic history of India (they might start with A. L. Basham's "The Wonder that was India"). And in the United States, those of Hindu descent may, far from India, and even farther from understanding the past and present and future menace of Islam as an ideology, have Muslim friends -- and, as so many do, they may end up confusing personal charm or even kindness or even romantic entanglements with a Muslim for the sweet reasonableness of Islam itself. And this in turn can lead to a tacit whitewashing of Muslim history.
Were I an Indian-American, I would like to find out about what Muslim rule meant for India. Why did Ibn Battuta report, with such bland indifference, on the mass-murders and enslavement of whole villages of Hindus in his "Rihla"? Why was it left to Sir William Jones, and a group of Englishmen, to rediscover or help to rediscover India's Hindu past? What is the real origin of India's Muslims and of Pakistanis -- was it that Islam was simply so wonderful and attractive, or where there other reasons for conversion to Islam? How many Hindu victims were there of Islam in India? What happened to all the temples? (Hint: see the list compiled by Sita Ram Goel). What did the India's own historians write about the Muslim invaders and rulers, as for example in the 2-volume anthology edited, in the 19th century (and recently re-published) by Dowson and Elliott? Why have such historians as K. S. Lal and Sarkar not received their due in the outside world -- or even on Indian campuses? How were Sikhs treated by Muslims, including the most important early figures? What happens to Hindus (and Sikhs) in Pakistan today? In Bangladesh? In Kashmir? How much Muslim violence and terrorism takes place in India, and is never reported outside of India? What happens to Hindus in Amsterdam? In London, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bradford, at the hands of their Muslim neighbors -- anything? Nothing?
Why do Indian-Americans tend to uncritically accept Muslim propaganda, and denounce -- without having read K. S. Lal, or Sita Ram Goel, or Koenraad Elst, or Sir Jahundath Sarkar, or a hundred others who have written -- any expression of interest in, or sympathy for, Hinduism and the Hindu past as something fit for only the most reactionary supporter of Hindutva?
Why is it only the most extraordinary and self-assured observers of Indian descent, such as V. S. Naipaul, who are capable of taking Islam's measure, without any fear of being labelled "Hindutva" fanatics?
These are questions to be asked, if not in Hindu temples and Sikh gundwaras, then privately, to oneself, just before ordering on-line a few books, to start with, by K. S. Lal.
And don't stop there.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022949.php
Muslim Brotherhood Website: Jihad Against Non-Muslims Is Obligatory
Muslim Brotherhood Website: Jihad Against Non-Muslims Is Obligatory
On a website devoted to Ramadhan, the Muslim Brotherhood posted a series of articles by Dr. Ahmad 'Abd Al-Khaleq about Al-Walaa Wa'l-Baraa, an Islamic doctrine which, in its fundamentalist interpretation, stipulates absolute allegiance to the community of Muslims and total rejection of non-Muslims and of Muslims who have strayed from the path of Islam.
In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by hating all non-Muslims – Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists – and by waging jihad against them in every possible manner.
For full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2877.
On a website devoted to Ramadhan, the Muslim Brotherhood posted a series of articles by Dr. Ahmad 'Abd Al-Khaleq about Al-Walaa Wa'l-Baraa, an Islamic doctrine which, in its fundamentalist interpretation, stipulates absolute allegiance to the community of Muslims and total rejection of non-Muslims and of Muslims who have strayed from the path of Islam.
In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by hating all non-Muslims – Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists – and by waging jihad against them in every possible manner.
For full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/report.htm?report=2877.
SIMI Vs Bajrang Dal - A comparison
SIMI Vs Bajrang Dal - A comparison
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/simi-and-indian-mujahideen-can-they-be-compared/
SIMI and Bajrang Dal - can they be compared?
Jump to Comments
There is a heated debate on in India about whether it is possible to compare SIMI and Bajrang Dal …and also whether to ban these two organisations.
Let us see if we can compare these organisations. As the Bajrang Dal website is banned, I cannot verify their agenda and SIMI does not appear to have a website. There are plenty of news articles about these two organisations and their goals but I have come to the conclusion that the wiki has the agenda of these organisations outlined in a comprehensive and fairly unbiased manner.
1. Religious identity and religious agenda - both SIMI and Bajrang Dal have this.
Bajrang Dal, it’s said, wants to “expose the questionable means adopted by some Christian bodies to convert poor people under a world evangelical plan that specially targeted Hindu-majority India.” They have other religious goals, like building temples at Hindu holy sites and banning cow slaughter. They are also fighting against government policies which they feel appease minorities.
However, it is important to mention that the Bajrang Dal has no interest in converting non-Hindus to Hinduism. They only want to prevent conversions and fear that the Hindu identity of India will disappear if conversions continue. There have been serious and substantive allegations of christian missionaries using bribes to convert poor Hindus.
SIMI too has a religious agenda. SIMI is apparently against secularism and wishes to “restore the supremacy of Islam.” More details can be found on the wikipedia site.
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/simi-and-indian-mujahideen-can-they-be-compared/
SIMI and Bajrang Dal - can they be compared?
Jump to Comments
There is a heated debate on in India about whether it is possible to compare SIMI and Bajrang Dal …and also whether to ban these two organisations.
Let us see if we can compare these organisations. As the Bajrang Dal website is banned, I cannot verify their agenda and SIMI does not appear to have a website. There are plenty of news articles about these two organisations and their goals but I have come to the conclusion that the wiki has the agenda of these organisations outlined in a comprehensive and fairly unbiased manner.
1. Religious identity and religious agenda - both SIMI and Bajrang Dal have this.
Bajrang Dal, it’s said, wants to “expose the questionable means adopted by some Christian bodies to convert poor people under a world evangelical plan that specially targeted Hindu-majority India.” They have other religious goals, like building temples at Hindu holy sites and banning cow slaughter. They are also fighting against government policies which they feel appease minorities.
However, it is important to mention that the Bajrang Dal has no interest in converting non-Hindus to Hinduism. They only want to prevent conversions and fear that the Hindu identity of India will disappear if conversions continue. There have been serious and substantive allegations of christian missionaries using bribes to convert poor Hindus.
SIMI too has a religious agenda. SIMI is apparently against secularism and wishes to “restore the supremacy of Islam.” More details can be found on the wikipedia site.
Islamic Menace : "In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"
மிக முக்கியமான ஆழமான பேச்சு இது. எப்படி ஐரோப்பாவில் இஸ்லாம் தன்னை
காலூன்றிக்கொண்டுள்ளது என்பதை கீர்ட் வில்டர்ஸின் இந்தப் பேச்சு
உங்களுக்குத் தெரிவிக்கும். இவர் எடுத்திருப்பது 17 நிமிடப் படம்.
இஸ்லாமை எதிர்க்கும் படம். அதற்கு அவர் அனுபவிக்கும் எதிர்ப்பும் ஏராளம்.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/10/geert_wilders_s.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)
http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fitna-transcript-fr...
=============
"In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian and
chairman of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four
Seasons, New York,
introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad
Conference in Jerusalem
The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons.
I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that
starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny
days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four
Seasons, that's new to me.
It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office
buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and
the will of man made visible." Of course. Without the Dutch you would
have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the
Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a
far better job than we possibly could have done.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world.
There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be
optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of
Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of
Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the
West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last
man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western
civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US
will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk
their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming
a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I
will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I
will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will
tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks.
The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and
maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still
look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your
tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors
see - and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is
the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim
neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even
seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police
as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in
figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their
husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With
mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot
read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These
are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics.
These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every
city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial
control of increasingly larger
portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood,
city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger
congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city
there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in
the region.
Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take
Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority
of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a
ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among
boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be
mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that
would be an insult
to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal
food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up
almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore,
whore".
Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations
in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to
avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and
Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the
Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim
sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the
British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas
for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after
being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during
the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for
the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now
commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I
could go on forever with stories like this.
Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego
University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the
population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.
Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this
century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening
if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there
are few signs
of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims
see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France.
One-third of
French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre
for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students
are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that
half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them
respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own
country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim
holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another
cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation
by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to
accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We
have cabinet members with passports from
Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty
crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and
bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the
low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated
incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators
"settlers". Because that is what they are. They do not come to
integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into
their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively
against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their
neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia.
They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane
level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. Our many
problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the
European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything
to go with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is
Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to
know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran
is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the
prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is
Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation.
It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no
such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate
Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and
terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to
terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent
jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world -
by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as
monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the
prophet.
His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.
Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and
Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed
was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages
- at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in
battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war
executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu
Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to
liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of
Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it
is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two
most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being
a religion.
Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its
essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down
detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants
to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is
not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for
is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to
communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian
ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand
what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the
life of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday
reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you
know why Winston Churchill
called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he
compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral
duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran
stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in
reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the
core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused
quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there
was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent
in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror
alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim
population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-
Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack.
Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban
threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in
Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message
that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East
stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the
screening of the movie.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several
occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian
President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia
again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued
cowardly statements in the same vein
as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an
absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet.
Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week
there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror
alert for the
Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very
soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a
politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about
Israel. The public has
wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as
the
aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see
defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this
country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First,
because it is the Jewish homeland
after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz,
second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our
first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders".
Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is
situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial
advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir,
Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon,
and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-
Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war
against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows
that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel,
Islamic imperialism would
have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for
conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the
army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep
well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address
the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God
forbid, to go
down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our
Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and
accept
our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous
encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see
the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The
end of
Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the
beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world
domination.
If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not
that
the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing
Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we
are
losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration
is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the
arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the
entire
political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of
multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all
critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The
entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and
Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At
this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us.
To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To
honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is
today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the
governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private,
they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red
light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a
religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing
Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly
called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the
elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come
from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on
the entire
political, legal and media establishment. [Sic: Exactly as in India.
They are the fifth column of Islam. NSR]
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs
of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn
their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the
Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass
immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World
War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the
biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public
opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My
own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it
stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-
minded parties
in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are
gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together
and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big.
Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It
might also be Europe's last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to
Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch
Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing
this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same
boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those
attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be
allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots.
This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and
political
parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek
your
support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may
hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from
jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still
smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever
shattered that dream. Yet
there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the
scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in
Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe
without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual
nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies
will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic
Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of
Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation
never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver
platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout
Europe American
cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and
whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we
are merely
its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to
Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We
cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would
never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not
have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have
seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They
have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement,
capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times
in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling
us to draw lessons
from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small,
large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good
sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently
overwhelming might of the enemy".
காலூன்றிக்கொண்டுள்ளது என்பதை கீர்ட் வில்டர்ஸின் இந்தப் பேச்சு
உங்களுக்குத் தெரிவிக்கும். இவர் எடுத்திருப்பது 17 நிமிடப் படம்.
இஸ்லாமை எதிர்க்கும் படம். அதற்கு அவர் அனுபவிக்கும் எதிர்ப்பும் ஏராளம்.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/10/geert_wilders_s.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)
http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fitna-transcript-fr...
=============
"In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian and
chairman of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four
Seasons, New York,
introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad
Conference in Jerusalem
The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons.
I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that
starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny
days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four
Seasons, that's new to me.
It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office
buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and
the will of man made visible." Of course. Without the Dutch you would
have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the
Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a
far better job than we possibly could have done.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world.
There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be
optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of
Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of
Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the
West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last
man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western
civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US
will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk
their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming
a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I
will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I
will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will
tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks.
The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and
maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still
look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your
tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors
see - and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is
the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim
neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even
seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police
as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in
figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their
husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With
mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot
read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These
are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics.
These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every
city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial
control of increasingly larger
portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood,
city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger
congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city
there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in
the region.
Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take
Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority
of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a
ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among
boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be
mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that
would be an insult
to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal
food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up
almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore,
whore".
Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations
in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to
avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and
Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the
Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim
sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the
British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas
for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after
being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during
the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for
the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now
commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I
could go on forever with stories like this.
Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego
University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the
population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.
Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this
century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening
if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there
are few signs
of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims
see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France.
One-third of
French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre
for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students
are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that
half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them
respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own
country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim
holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another
cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation
by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to
accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We
have cabinet members with passports from
Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty
crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and
bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the
low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated
incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators
"settlers". Because that is what they are. They do not come to
integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into
their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively
against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their
neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia.
They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane
level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. Our many
problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the
European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything
to go with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is
Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to
know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran
is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the
prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is
Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation.
It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no
such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate
Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and
terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to
terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent
jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world -
by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as
monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the
prophet.
His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.
Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and
Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed
was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages
- at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in
battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war
executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu
Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to
liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of
Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it
is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two
most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being
a religion.
Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its
essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down
detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants
to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is
not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for
is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to
communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian
ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand
what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the
life of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday
reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you
know why Winston Churchill
called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he
compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral
duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran
stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in
reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the
core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused
quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there
was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent
in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror
alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim
population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-
Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack.
Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban
threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in
Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message
that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East
stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the
screening of the movie.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several
occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian
President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia
again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued
cowardly statements in the same vein
as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an
absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet.
Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week
there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror
alert for the
Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very
soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a
politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about
Israel. The public has
wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as
the
aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see
defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this
country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First,
because it is the Jewish homeland
after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz,
second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our
first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders".
Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is
situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial
advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir,
Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon,
and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-
Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war
against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows
that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel,
Islamic imperialism would
have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for
conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the
army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep
well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address
the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God
forbid, to go
down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our
Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and
accept
our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous
encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see
the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The
end of
Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the
beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world
domination.
If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not
that
the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing
Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we
are
losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration
is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the
arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the
entire
political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of
multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all
critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The
entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and
Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At
this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us.
To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To
honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is
today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the
governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private,
they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red
light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a
religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing
Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly
called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the
elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come
from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on
the entire
political, legal and media establishment. [Sic: Exactly as in India.
They are the fifth column of Islam. NSR]
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs
of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn
their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the
Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass
immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World
War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the
biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public
opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My
own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it
stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-
minded parties
in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are
gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together
and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big.
Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It
might also be Europe's last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to
Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch
Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing
this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same
boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those
attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be
allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots.
This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and
political
parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek
your
support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may
hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from
jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still
smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever
shattered that dream. Yet
there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the
scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in
Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe
without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual
nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies
will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic
Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of
Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation
never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver
platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout
Europe American
cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and
whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we
are merely
its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to
Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We
cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would
never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not
have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have
seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They
have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement,
capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times
in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling
us to draw lessons
from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small,
large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good
sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently
overwhelming might of the enemy".
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Arunagiri's article on Mecca's destruction and the raise of Al-Qaeda
Writer Arunagiri has written a series on how Mecca got damaged during an internal fighting of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and how this led to the emergence of Al-qaeda and Osama bin Laden. His articles are based on a popular book 'The Siege of Mecca'.
http://www.thinnai.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=20810094&format=html
http://www.thinnai.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=20810094&format=html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
