• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Islamism - 7


<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
1857: not a jihadi uprising

By Hassan Jafar Zaidi

The documentary, Clash Of The Worlds: Mutiny, telecast by BBC-1 on January 7, carried some distortions of historical facts. It suggested that the 1857 uprising against the British was motivated, organised and fought by the jihadi Muslims of India. The background of jihad was linked to 1830-31 Wahabi movement led by Syed Ahmed Brelvi who was a disciple of Mohammad Bin Abdul Wahab of Arabia (1704-92).

The documentary traced the roots of Wahabism as an anti-British movement, leading finally to an armed struggle against the British in India; establishing a jihadi camp in Peshawar “against the British” under the command of Syed Ahmed who was killed in 1831 without telling ‘who he was fighting against’ and who really killed him. Some important facts have been ignored or misrepresented because they did not fit into what the documentary was trying to impress upon i.e. the Islamic Jihad always targeted the British, irrespective of time and space in the history of mankind.

It is important to set the historical records straight. History must be viewed in its true perspective rather than an instrument of propaganda for the persecution of a religious community.

Sir W.W. Hunter, a great British annalist and an ICS officer, was assigned to prepare a report about discontentment among the Muslims of India (published as Our Indian Musalmans or The Indian Musalmans). It was considered an authentic document on Syed Ahmed’s Wahabi Jihad movement. <b>According to Hunter, Syed Ahmed, under the influence of Mohammad Bin Abdul Wahab, recruited during early 19th century, the Jihadis, the fighters of Holy War, from Bengal, Bihar, Awadh and Agra, the areas which were under the administration of East India Company.

British officers had the knowledge of this recruitment and they let it happen because the target of this recruitment was not the British but the Sikh empire of Ranjeet Singh spread over Punjab, the present day North West Frontier Province and Kashmir.</b>

<b>Hunter narrates stories of young Muslims, doing menial jobs in the East India Company, applying for long leave and the Company’s officers granting them. Syed Ahmed was successful in conquering Peshawar and its surrounding areas up to Mansehra and Balakot.</b>

Battles between the Sikh armies and the jihadis continued; the Sikhs were officered by the French generals to support Maharaja Ranjeet against the British expansion. Thus, this local war became a proxy war between the British and the French ––<b> the jihadis enjoying tacit support of the British and the French helping the Sikh armies.</b>

Syed Ahmed and many of his companions were killed at the hands of the Sikhs (and the French) in a battle at Balakot in 1831. <b>To some extent, it resembled the recent proxy war between the Soviets and the western bloc fought under the guise of jihad by Osama bin Laden and other jihadi organisations. It was only after the fall of Sikh empire in 1849 that a minor group led by Patna-based brothers Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali, the Wahabis began to work against the British just as the Taliban, once favourite Mujadideen of the West, turned against the West after the demise of the Soviet Union.</b>

The BBC documentary does not reveal several facts about the real contending forces. The 1857 uprising, mutiny for the British and war of independence for the Indians, has been portrayed in the documentary as Jihad by Muslims/Wahabi terrorists against the British, and there is no mention of the participation of Hindus and other Indian communities in it –– a crucial omission.

There exists a general consensus among historians that 1857 war was a secular uprising. It united Muslims and Hindus against the colonialist British who, by their policies, had sowed the seeds of rebellion in all the communities for different reasons. The uprising was inevitable when the Indian section of the army was allocated cartridges greased with the fat of cows and pigs, unacceptable to both Hindus and Muslims. The vanguard of the rebellion consisted of all the communities. The mutiny lasted thirteen months: from the rising at Meerut on May, 10, 1857 to the fall of Gwaliar on June 20, 1858.

Thomas Lowe, a contemporary British chronicler who was in Central India during the rebellion, wrote in 1860: "The infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Musalman, had joined together in the cause; cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater… had revolted together." <b>The combatants in the uprising comprised the rebellious East India Company sepoys, several small princely states mostly ruled by Hindu rajas, and deposed rulers of big princely states of Oudh (Muslim) and Jhansi (Hindu).</b>

A closer look into the uprising reveals little presence of Wahabi extremists. There were calls for jihad by Muslim leaders like Maulana Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi and Ahmedullah Shah which were responded by Muslim artisans of Oudh. <b>In May 1857 the Battle of Shamli took place between the forces of Haji Imdadullah and the British in Thana Bhawan in Oudh. These few eruptions led by religious Muslim leaders could not and did not change the overall secular complexion of the Rebellion.</b>

The origins of Wahabi movement of late 18th and early 19th century in Arabian peninsula were not anti-British sentiments. <b>The movement targeted the Turkish Ottomans who, as believed by the Wahabis, were responsible for polluting the fundamentalist Islam of Arabia with the traditionalist rituals of Ajam (non-Arabs). Wahabism was a political movement, with religious overtones, seeking freedom for Arabs from the occupation of Ottoman Turks.</b>

<b>The British wanted to destabilise and demolish the Ottoman Empire; they facilitated and supported the Wahabis in Arabian peninsula. The rulers of Najd, the House of Saud (Al-Saud), were the disciples of Wahabism. The Indian Viceroy i.e. the representative of British Crown as Governor General, provided money and arms to Al-Saud rulers of Najd and other Gulf Sheikhdoms to brew this rebellion against Ottomans (The Kingdom: The Arabia and the House of Saud by Robert Lacy).</b>

<b>During World War1, John Philby, an Intelligence Officer of the British Foreign Service was sent in 1917 to Abdul Aziz, the Wahabi ruler of Najd, to serve as his advisor. Aziz succeeded in deposing Sherif Hussain of Makkah from Hijaz to establish Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after the collapse of Ottoman Empire. Philby served as a minister in the government of Al-Saud. He changed his name as Abdullah apparently after embracing Islam but still served the British Intelligence. He was exiled by King Saud in 1955.</b>

That is how Wahabism was supported and sponsored by the British in 19th and 20th century in the Arabian peninsula which later became the breeding ground of jihadis. After 9/11, the world changed and the allies became aliens. So, the documentary portrays the Wahabi jihadis as anti-British and anti-West militants since the inception of Wahabism till to-date.

The researchers of the documentary perhaps were ignorant of the fundamentals of Wahabism. A collogue of pages from some religious books in Urdu were presented as the literature of teachings of Wahabis. One of the pages was titled “Shab-i-Barat ki Fazeelat” (Glory of the Night of Exoneration). One may note the Wahabis don’t believe in this night, nor take part in celebrations performed on this night by the traditionalist Muslims.
The worst butchers of Hindu people..let the new generation of Indians know this..then maybe we will have some hope of stopping this abominable worship of our killers

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The worst butchers of Hindu people..let the new generation of Indians know this..then maybe we will have some hope of stopping this abominable worship of our killers <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why they have skipped British rule, missionary role, Communist, Akbhar?
Even today there is continous attack on Hindus in Kerala by Christians. Muslims and Communist. Don't forget Muppulah butchery in Kerala.

They should come up with new list
Yeah I agree..partial list
Some poetry by Samina Malik ( 22 year old woman arrested in UK for posting pro-jihad articles on the internet )

How To Behead
It's not as messy or as hard as some may think.
It's all about the flow of the wrist.
Sharpen the knife to its maximum.
And before you begin to cut the flesh,
Tilt the fool's head to its left.
Saw the knife back and forth.
No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream,
But ignore the donkey's ass,
And continue to slice back and forth.
You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe.
But don't stop.
Continue with all your might.
About now you should feel the knife vibrate.
You can feel the warm heat being given off.
But this is due to the friction being caused. (Samina Malik)

AN “overwhelming majority” of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night.

The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found “widespread anti-immigration sentiment”, but warned Europe’s Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years.

It reported “a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities”, with most people wanting less interaction with the Muslim world.

Last night an MP warned it showed that political leaders in Britain who preach the benefits of unlimited immigration were dangerously out of touch with the public.

The study, whose authors include the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, was commissioned for leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

It reports “a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations”.

And it concludes: “An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat.”

The report says people have little enthusiasm for greater understanding with Islam and attempts to improve relations have been “disappointing”.

And with the EU Muslim population expected to reach 15 per cent by 2025 it predicts: “Any deterioration on the international front will be felt most severely in Europe
Dear Acharya:

Is there a relief fund created for Sri. KumaraPandian and his brother's families. If so, I would like to contribute for it. Or else, can someone give the family's address and I can mail the check to them. It looks so sad and I plan to show the posting on this Tragic Event to some of my friends to generate a fund so that the family can come over this tragedy and live in solace for the rest of their life.

Rama K.


Endangered Ladakh
30 Jan 2008, 1211 hrs IST,Tarun Vijay

SMS NEWS to 58888 for latest updates
Thupstan Chhewang, belonging to the Royals of Leh is a highly respected Ladakhi leader who was once president of Ladakh Congress party. His one member party in Parliament is supporting UPA. He was also the firebrand leader of Ladakh Buddhist Association, which led a phenomenal movement against socio-political discrimination by Srinagar's communal governance in late eighties resulting in the formation of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council.

His unassuming soft spoken personality exudes confidence and a rare dedication for the cause of his people and the nation. If he has raised an alarm on the Chinese incursions in Ladakh it must be taken seriously.

Of late Ladakh has been witnessing a continuous trespassing by Chinese shepherds and soldiers in Chushul area where we fought a famous war of Trishul mountains led by Major Shaitan Singh (who received Param Vir Chakra after his and his brave men's bodies were discovered one year after their martyrdom) and in the vast grass lands near Demchok.

It's the point where a nullah defines the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Indus enters India at this point from the Kailas Manasarovar region in western Tibet and it is a region great scintillating natural beauty. The people of Ladakh have been demanding opening of this route to reach Kailas Manasarovar in a shorter and safer way.

Chinese are known to enter our region in a clandestine manner. In the initial stage they would do it through innocent passages into our territory using shepherds, soldiers and traders. If caught, they would say, oh nothing to worry we simply went wayward.

If not, it continues for years, the intruders would leave their marks, some properties and cattle too. Make some permanent bases. Later these small 'marks' would be used to claim that 'since ages' Chinese have been using that piece of land - see the 'proofs'!

We were caught napping during Kargil intrusion. When patriotic Ladakhi shepherds told the Army about Pakistani intrusions initially, it was not taken seriously. In the same way alarms about the latest Chinese intrusion are being taken lightly and in some 'strategic' quarters its being suggested that such talks would hamper the growing trade between the two nations.

Sometime back a BJP Member of Parliament from Arunachal, Kiren Rijiju, had created a furore by claiming that Chinese are intruding in the state. He had even mentioned particular spots where the intrusion had taken place. Again the state and the Centre were swift in ridiculing the allegation and as recent as December Defence Minister A.K. Antony told reporters, when asked about reports of alleged incursion of Indian territories and removal of a few forward posts by China, 'I don't want to go into details. As far as Indian territories are concerned nothing has happened,"

The fact is that the Chinese have a focussed military presence in this area and that's the reason of their silence over Indian demand to open the route to Manasarovar via Demchok.

I had taken up this issue four times during my stint as the member of India-China Eminent Persons' Group formed by the Ministry of External Affairs. Every time we raised the issue, the Chinese side would listen attentively but nothing would come out of it ever. Not even a written acknowledgement.

<span style='color:red'>Now a few facts: </span>

Out of 2,22,236 sq kms of the J&K state, Jammu has 26,293 sq kms and Ladakh 1,38,942 sq kms. It must be remembered that 78,114 sq kms of the state is under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 37,555 sq kms under illegal occupation of China and 5,180 sq kms have been illegally handed over to China by Pakistan. While Ladakh constitutes 69.60 % of the state's total land area, Kashmir valley, the most turbulent and vocal one is just 11.48 % and Jammu 18.92 %. Within Ladakh, Buddhist majority district Leh has 45,110 sq kms and Shia Muslim majority district Kargil has 13,000 sq kms. While Kargil has shown an extraordinary growth in population of 17.34 % in the years between 1981to 1991, Leh population grew at the rate of just 9.10 %. Even in Leh district the population of Muslims increased from 15.32 % in 1981 to 18.37 % in 1991 (projected).

Buddhists fear an assault on their culture and traditions through the conversion of Buddhist girls and a planned effort to outnumber Buddhists through a population aggression.

In 1992 an agreement was signed between the Ladakh Muslim Association and Ladakh Buddhist Association, the supreme organization of Ladakh representing Buddhists, at the intervention of Ministry of Home Affairs ensuring that the Buddhists converted to Islam shall be allowed to return to their original faith, but the Muslims never honoured the agreement.

The following points were raised by the Buddhist Association in a memorandum to the Central Government -

1. During 1992-99, 24 Buddhist girls from Leh district were converted to Islam and majority of them were taken to Kargil.

2. Twelve villages with hamlets of Buddhists, comprising 651 families (numbering app. 5000 persons) located at 40 to 60 kms from Kargil town were targeted for conversions. Till 2002, 72 boys and girls were converted to Islam as per the survey conducted by the Ladakh Buddhist Association.

3. Muslims of Kargil are not allowing the LBA to repair and reconstruct a 40 year old. Gompa comprising three rooms and at present lying in shambles.

4. Cremation of dead Buddhists is not allowed at Kargil and the body has to be moved at a remote Buddhist area.

5. No Buddhist Sarai is allowed to be constructed at Kargil though there has been a demand for the last 35 years.

6. Six new mosques have been constructed at Leh town during 1989-99 in close vicinity of Buddhist habitations and in a planned manner more than 540 Muslim families have been settled at Leh, majority of them coming from Kargil.

7. Kargil has 20% Buddhist population. Yet (a) only one Buddhist was appointed as patwari out of 24 patwaris, the rest were all Muslims. (b) In 1998, 40 employees for class IV were appointed in education department, out of these only one was Buddhist, that too after his conversion to Islam.

Similar complaints, with proven statistics were given regarding discrimination against Buddhists in the Kashmir Administrative Services (KAS), admission to medical and engineering colleges, and allocation of development funds received from the Centre. Needless to say such discriminations would fuel the anger and communalise the polity in an ugly manner if proper corrections are not made immediately.

Though the Central government and Indian Army have been helping the people of Kashmir Valley at the cost of the other states' development, the unrest and anti-Indian feelings in the Valley have shown an increase rather than getting subsided.

But the patriotic Buddhist population of Ladakh is being 'punished' by the Central and the state government both for political reasons. The administration in Leh is controlled by the sultans of Srinagar.

The Leh Autonomous Development Council which has a majority of those members demanding a separate Union Territory status for Ladakh (under a political entity of UP Morcha) so that they are unshackled from the communal bondage of Srinagar, is discriminated against by local district commissioner and police superintendent. No amount of complaints gets any result. Buddhist leaders like Chhewang ask if they are being punished for their loyalty and patriotism.

No government has considered the complaints of the local Ladakhi Buddhists seriously. In January 2000, a news report appeared that stated the pain and agony of the Buddhists. It read:

‘President of Ladakh Buddhist Association Mr Samphal said between 1992 and 1999, 24 women had been forced to adopt Islam and the state government had "misinformed" the Union Home Ministry that some of the women had married Muslim youths willingly.

He said some Buddhist women "had been whisked away" to Kashmir where court documents were "clandestinely" prepared to show that the Buddhist women had married the Muslim youths willingly.

'Mr Samphal has requested the Union Home Minister to intervene and ensure that 39 Buddhist students who had been taken away from Ladakh by some Christian missionaries were brought back to the land of lamas before they were forced to adopt Christianity.' (Jan 12, 2000, Tribune News Service).

When the UPA government took over, the first thing they did to Ladakh was to change the name of the world famous Sindhu Darshan Festival to Ladakh Singhey Khabab Spring Festival because, as the minister stated on record, the name Sindhu Darshan smacked of 'Hindu Darshan'! This is the attitude towards the national integration of this secular government.

Recently in December 2007 a delegation of Ladakhi leaders had a meeting with the Prime Minister and demanded inclusion of their Bhoti language in the eighth schedule and a non-discriminatory behaviour by the Congress led government of J&K.

Though the language of Kashmir valley is Kashmiri, yet due to communal reasons they chose to have Urdu as their state language and the same is imposed on Ladakhi Buddhists too, ignoring their traditional Bhoti language.

Their memorandum submitted to Dr. Manmohan Singh stated, 'The Congress-led state government is treating the duly-elected Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC-Leh) with utter contempt. A reign of terror and repression has been let loose against us by the Congress-led state government in Jammu and Kashmir.’

‘The police have been set upon on us as a clearly pre-meditated strategy to browbeat us into submission. The forcible closure of the headquarters of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA), framing of false criminal cases including murder and attempt to murder against its office-bearers, police assault on an elected Ladakh Union Territory Front (LUTF) councillor, disrespect being shown to the Chairman and Chief Executive Councillor of the LAHDC and a campaign of calumny against the LUTF chief.’

‘How can policemen or bureaucrats be allowed to ride roughshod over a democratic dispensation? How can they treat our social and religious organisations with utter contempt? Their wrong-doings have strengthened our resolve to keep striving for Union Territory for we want to strengthen what we regard as our umbilical chord with New Delhi.’

I would quote a few lines from a famous international journalist Barbara Crossette's report appeared in The New York Times on September 13, 1989-

' The disturbances, which began in July after a Muslim-Buddhist brawl in Leh's main bazaar, became more intense and larger after Aug. 27, when the Kashmiri state police fired on a Buddhist demonstration, killing three people. The police also arrested the president of the Buddhist Association, Thupsthan Chhewang, a member of Ladakh's former royal family. The unrest in Ladakh adds a dangerous dimension to a generally deteriorating political situation in Jammu and Kashmir, India's most sensitive border state. Militant Muslim groups in Srinagar, the state capital, and the surrounding Valley of Kashmir have sustained a year-long campaign of violence that is becoming more openly separatist. On Aug. 14, Pakistani Independence Day, and on Aug. 17, the anniversary of the death in an air crash in 1988 of Pakistan's President, Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, Kashmiri militants in Srinagar and other towns plastered posters bearing General Zia's portrait on buildings and bridges. A Pakistani flag was hoisted over state office buildings.'

What has changed since then?

The separatists and traitors are being appeased by the secular government in Delhi and Srinagar but the patriots, who have fought most valiantly all the wars with Pakistan and China, bringing home highest decorations given the martyred soldiers are being treated with contempt.

Himalayas, was once called the unconquerable security wall of the grand Aryavarta i.e. Hindustan. The myth fell apart in '62 aggression by the Chinese and still neither the younger generation nor the sunset leadership in politics seems to be much bothered about securing the security wall, nature had so thoughtfully gifted us.

From J&K to Arunachal, we have Ladakh, Himachal, Uttaranchal, UP and Bihar's border area with Nepal, Sikkim and Assam reaching up to the Tawang region of Arunachal on this belt.

Not a single spot can be said to be a secure and unthreatened one and the fears of disturbance are increasing by the day on this entire belt.

While Ladakh, Himachal, Uttaranchal, UP and Bihar are basically threatened by Islamic Jihadis and their population aggression with active hub centres in their madrassas, presently joined by the Communist terrorists in the guise of Maoists, the North Eastern region is rife with Church supported insurgent movements.

The heights of Himalayas are endangered under the secular anti-patriotism dispensation.

The author is the editor of Panchjanya, a Hindi weekly brought out by the RSS. The views expressed are his personal.


This is regarding the barbaric killing of Sri. Kumara Pandian and his three other brothers by Muslim Militants.
Is there a relief fund created for Sri. KumaraPandian and his brother's families. If so, I would like to contribute for it. Or else, can someone give the family's address and I can mail the check to them. It looks so sad and I plan to show the posting on this Tragic Event to some of my friends to generate a fund so that the family can come over this tragedy and live in solace for the rest of their life.

Rama K.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Austria bans construction of mosques

February 13, 2008

VIENNA: A southern Austrian regional parliament gave its go-ahead on Tuesday to a change in the law that would effectively ban building mosques and possibly other non-Christian establishments in the region.

While no mention was actually made of mosques or minarets in the bill approved by lawmakers in the province of Carinthia, the change to the so-called ‘Ortsbildpflegegesetz’ - or law on the upkeep of towns’ appearances - meant that special dispensations would now be required for the construction of ‘buildings of unusual dimensions.’

Carinthia’s governor, far-rightist Joerg Haider, said it was high time ‘to send a signal,’ accusing the centre-left Social Democrats of not doing anything to stop ‘the advance of Islam.’

Carinthia would be a ‘beacon for Europe’ on the matter, the leader said. The changes were condemned by the opposition Green and Social Democrat parties, as well as the Austrian Muslim community that said the changes constituted an infringement of religious freedom.

^^ That means even hindu, sikh temples cant be constructed now in Austria. Due to the wrong doings of Muslims other religions have to suffer. It is better to disassociate with Islam and it's philiosophy.

The Indians who keep talking of 'Hindu-Muslim composite culture' and the South Asian culture meaning 'India -pakisatan' culture should open their eyes and see what type of culture the pakis have. They dont have anything common with us. Rather their extremist behaviour will tarnish our culture and image and get us into needless trouble.
I have seen Mosque and Temple in Vienna (Wein), Austria. This is for future construction.
There is a change in demography after Bosnia war in Austria, and people openly express hatred towards illegal Muslim immigration.
If the Austrians have problems with the Bosnian muslims they should have directed their anger towards Bosnian muslims rather than all non-christian austrians.

Now for the fooly and extremism of one group others have to pay a price.
In e-mail:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is the Quran Pure? by Harvard House
17 Feb, 2008

Why did Muhammad's close companions write unique versions of the Qur'an?
Why were these unique versions of the Qur'an later destroyed by fire?

When Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur'an had not been recorded and collected into a book. Instead, Muslims memorized large portions of the Qur'an. This was especially true of people who knew Muhammad in person. The Qur'an means to recite. It is possible that some of the verses had been recorded on bones, rocks, or hides before Muhammad died. Regardless, it didn't take long for the early Muslims to decide that they needed to have the Qur'an collected into a book.
The original Qur'an was completed by 634 CE. It is important to understand that a political process is what produced the Qur'an. In 633 CE, a military battle caused 700 Muslims to be killed. A close friend of Muhammad (named Salim) that could recite a large portion of the Qur'an was killed. What would happen if all the close followers of Muhammad were killed? Early Muslims wanted to maintain the purity of the Qur'an as Muhammad had spoken it.

So the original Qur'an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur'an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death [Refer to Al-Masahif 24] It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").
Based on Muslim sources alone, it appears that the Hafsah codex was one of the last Qur'ans to be willingly destroyed by Muslims. Since the original Qur'an was not accepted, what happened to cause such a drastic change that required the original Qur'an to be destroyed? Why wasn't the Hafsah codex maintained since it was created (in 634 CE) within two years after Muhammad died (in 632 CE)?
To begin, an excellent procedure was in place during the collection of the original Qur'an. Abu Bakr ordered that the Qur'an could only include words that were vouched for by the testimony of two men. The earliest version of the Qur'an would have been most fresh in the minds of Muhammad's followers in 634 CE. Is it any wonder why Hafsah refused to release the original manuscript?

The history of how the Qur'an came to be recorded comes from reliable Muslim source materials. These are called the Hadith. Problems for the Qur'an began to occur during the reign of the 3rd political leader of Islam, whose name is Uthman (644 To 656 CE). It appears that as the Islamic faith spread with military conquest across a large area, the soldiers were reading different versions of the Qur'an. These men wondered, "Is the Qur'an truly as pure as those close to Muhammad believed and taught?"

The 2nd most trusted Hadith is called Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur'an reads as follows:

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur'an as Jews and the Christians did before."

In response to the request, the Caliph Uthman sent a message to Hafsah since she had the most important original manuscript sheets collected about 634 CE. We find written:

"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsah sent copies to Uthman.

Caliph Uthman had men who knew the Qur'an to assemble it again. We find written:

Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. "Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah."

Having obtained this new version, Uthman ordered all other Qur'ans to be destroyed by fire. We find written:

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, "Why were the other copies and fragments ordered to be burnt?" The answer is found in the original statement: "Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an"
Hudhaifa did not want different versions of the Qur'an. To Hudhaifa, unity of the Qur'an meant unity of all Muslims. If Muslims troops were not united, Islam would crumble.

Since all other copies of the Qur'an were ordered to be burned, what was wrong with them? Is the Qur'an pure as believed by modern day Muslims? Since the decision to burn all other Qur'ans was politically motivated, the Qur'an of today reflects the political whims of early Muslim political leaders, not the prophet Muhammad. Questions like this will never be answered. But it is certain that the Qur'an of today is not the original Qur'an recorded only 2 years after Muhammad died. It is certain that the Hafsah codex would have been the most accurate and original Qur'an of all time. But Muslim political leaders made sure that it was destroyed. So what actually happened in the early years of Islam?
Evidence of Multiple Qur'anic Versions

Muslim source materials report that at least four different versions of the Qur'an existed before the political order was given to have them burned. (Refer to "Al-Tamhid 2, 247).

The four versions were written by people who knew Muhammad in person. Each person created their unique version of the Qur'an. Based on Muslims sources, the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]
So a political decision was made to have only one Qur'an. This did not go over well with the original people who created their unique version of the Qur'an. Who were these chosen people?

Muslim source materials reveal some of these select people who are known to have created their unique version of the Qur'an. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150).

I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal."
So a few select people close to Muhammad thought they knew the Qur'an and collected their personal version. These versions of the Qur'an became widely distributed and used. This is why Muslim soldiers were arguing and calling one another heretics.

After the "official" Qur'an was released and the order was given to burn all other versions, some very bad feelings came out. The following information from Muslim sources is probably the most important information you can learn about people who actually knew Muhammad in person. Let's begin with Mas'ud, who was asked to burn his personal version of the Qur'an.

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

Would Mas'ud accept the Qur'an of today as being pure since he refused to destroy his unique version? Since Mas'ud did not want to have his unique version of the Qur'an destroyed, it is doubtful that Mas'ud would honestly answer that the Qur'an is pure. It is important to ask, "Why did Mas'ud refuse to give in and destroy his version of the Qur'an?"

Mas'ud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad taught the Qur'an to Mas'ud in person. Due to his close relationship with Muhammad, Mas'ud would have had confidence that he was qualified to create his unique version of the Qur'an.

Mas'ud, moved to Kufa, Iraq where he completed his unique version of the Qur'an (commonly called the Kufan Codex). The unique Qur'an created by Mas'ud was completed years after the most important original manuscript (634 CE) that Hafsah kept until she died in 667 CE. In addition, the Qur'an version created by Mas'ud did not have chapters 1, 113, and 114 that are in the "official" Qur'an of today. Is the Qur'an truly pure as believed by Muslims today?

Another unique Qur'an was created by Ubayy B. Ka'ab. He was a close companion of Muhammad and served as a secretary to Muhammad. Ubayy could recite much of the Qur'an, which he had learned from the prophet Muhammad. Scholars have found that Ubayy's version differed from the "official" Qur'an with two additional chapters (entitled: Surat Al-Khal and Surat Al-Afd). Since Ubayy was taught the Qur'an by the prophet Muhammad, why doesn't the "official" Qur'an contain the two additional chapters?

Ubayy died during the reign of Umar, which was before the "official" Qur'an was created by Uthman. Therefore, Ubayy did not have to witness that his version of the Qur'an was burned by Uthman's order. Since Ubayy created a unique version of the Qur'an and had learned from the mouth of the prophet Muhammad, would he have agreed with Mas'ud by refusing to give in and destroy his version of the Qur'an?"

Due to Uthman's decision to create an "official" version of the Qur'an, Ubayy's version of the Qur'an was destroyed. It is important to ask, "Is the Qur'an pure?"
Now consider the original Qur'an called the Hafsah Codex. It was destroyed by Muslims leaders immediately after Hafsah died. It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?"

The "official" Qur'an version of today comes from Zaid ibn Thabit, who was the youngest writing member. Zaid, being very young, outlived the older people who had spent more time with Muhammad. However, in the end it was Zaid's version of the Qur'an that was selected by Uthman for the "official" Qur'an version.
Muslims who had been close to Muhammad became righteously angry when Uthman insisted that only one version of the Qur'an be used. Islamic sources show that the purity of the Qur'an from the days of Muhammad appears to have been compromised. If no variants existed, then no burning party would have been held.
Muslims believe that seven versions of the Qur'an exist but that only Uthman's Qur'an is correct. So Muslims disregard the "official" book burning party cited in Muslim source materials. However, it takes "blind faith" to believe and accept this viewpoint.

If Muhammad could consistently foretell the future, then the Qur'an could be regarded as coming from God. However, this has not been demonstrated. The politically motivated book burning party of early Muslim leaders confirms the Qur'an is from a false Gabriel.

This article appeared in harvardhouse.com
Another round of muslim appeasement by congress government. This so-called minority dept will be used to implement sachar committee report which was asked to look into only muslim issues and not all minority communities.

Maharashtra first state to have Minorities Dept

February 25, 2008

Mumbai: Maharashtra has become the first state in the country to set up a separate Minorities Development Department.

Minorities Development Department has become the 30th Department of Maharashtra government, with a notification being issued for the same, an official release said today.

The notification has been issued in the backdrop of an announcement by Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh in winter session of state legislature last year.

The Department would look after several initiatives for welfare of minorities, including the Prime Minister's 15- point programme coordination, state minorities commission, state Haj and Wakf bodies and Urdu, Sindhi, Hindi and Gujarati academies.

The department will also be responsible for implementation of approved recommendations of the Justice Sachar committee.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Congress led UPA government fails to respond to PIL in Delhi High court on sachar committee</b>
Feb 27, 2008

New Delhi, Feb 27 - The Delhi High Court Wednesday pulled up the government for failing to respond to a public interest suit that sought restraint on the implementation of the Sachar committee report on the status of Muslims.

The court on the last date of hearing asked the government to file its reply by Wednesday, which it failed.

Chief Justice M.K. Sharma and Justice Reva Khetarpal asked the government to file its reply in a week's time, failing which the court would impose fine on it.

The government had set up the Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee to look into the social, economic and educational status of Muslims and to suggest ways to improve it. The committee's report was presented to parliament Nov 30, 2006.

Advocate P.N. Lekhi, who filed the PIL on behalf of the Patriots' Forum, sought to know whether the Sachar panel report had not treated the Muslims 'in a manner inconsistent with the treatment given to other recognised minorities'.

The public suit also raised the questions 'whether it was tainted with the logic of racial compartmentalisation and communitarianism, whether it did not promise the rise of political Islam in India in violation of the constitution, and whether Muslims, who had 'ruled' the peninsula, could be treated as a minority.'

Lekhi said any promotion of Muslims as a religious minority would result in 'destruction' of the secular polity promised by the constitution and was thus against its basic structure.

<b>'The petition wishes to know whether the terms of reference of the Sachar Committee are not an extension of the Pakistan Resolution of 1940 made in Lahore,' he said.

Lekhi claimed the Sachar committee report ran contrary to all Supreme Court judgements on secularism.

Arguing that the committee's recommendations were irrational, he claimed that the panel itself had said that in nine states the Muslims were educationally more advanced than other communities.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Now the jehadi loving congresswallas are finding it difficult to force down the sachar report which basically calls for second partition of india. So they try to avoid facing the courts and the questions of the people.

[center]<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Uncle beheads toddler in Saudi market : Report</span></b>[/center]

<b>RIYADH : A man beheaded his 15-month-old nephew in front of his mother in a supermarket in Saudi Arabia apparently after a family dispute, newspapers reported on Monday.

The 25-year-old Syrian national picked up a knife from the store in the Red Sea city of Jeddah on Sunday and decapitated the little boy in full view of shoppers, Arab News said.</b>

The man apparently killed him following a dispute with his sister and brother-in-law, the English-language daily said.

"He chopped off the boy's head in front of the mother," a police officer was quoted as saying. The mother fainted and was taken to hospital.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Indian Media is naturally full of coverage of Kashmir Singh, a former Punjab policeman, being released from Lahore Jail after 35 years.

He converted to religion of peace while in jail:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kashmir Singh, Ibrahim to his jail inmates, adopted Islam after six months of detention. He has been a practicing Muslim for many years and says his prayers five times a day, a jail official added.

Another detainee in the same jail Sarabjeet Singh had also converted:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->health condition of Sarbjit Singh worsened as he was lodged in a solitary cell for more than six years. The attitude of jail authorities compelled him to embrace Islam so that he could come out of his cell to offer Namaz five times. He said Sarbjit Singh was meted out third degree torture during his confinement in Pak jails.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

On the other hand, a convicted Pakistani spy in Indian Jail:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Pakistani national, arrested on espionage charges, is languishing in an Indian jail for the past 15 years despite completing his sentence and blames Islamabad for not doing anything to seek his repatriation.

Ahmed is very particular about his Namaaz and offers prayers five times a day.

Home grown jehadi-s enjoy even better in Indian Jails. Abu Salem (behind Mumbai Blasts of 93) is treated with Hyderabadi Biryani.
Abdul Nazar Madani (behind Coimbatore Blast of 98 - killing 58) receives Ayurvedic Massage from Kerala
Afzal Guru (behind Indian Parliament attack, killing a dozen security men) has not only received an unofficial clemency but also enjoys Urdu Novels and Koran to spend his leisure time and take inspiration for more Jehad.
Two important posts, cross posted from BR.

<b>Hossain Salahuddin - Young Bengali ex-Muslim apostate speaks out in Australia</b>

<b>A Muslim's Way Out of Islam</b>
By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 03, 2008

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Hossain Salahuddin, a poet, essayist and an ex-Muslim who is the author of several books. He is the editor of the magazine Maverick, which promotes literature, freethinking and rationalism.

<b>FP: Hossain Salahuddin, welcome to FrontPage interview.</b>

HS: Thanks very much for having me. It's a real pleasure to be here.

<b>FP: Tell us about your childhood and your upbringing within Islam.</b>

HS: I was born in 1984, into a Muslim family in Bangladesh . My family was rather orthodox and they made sure I learn the Quran properly even before they enrolled me in a school. I had a home tutor Mullah, who taught me reciting Quran in Arabic- and I was actually good at it. I remember completing the whole Arabic Quran three times before I turned 12 without even understanding a word of it. If I try to remember, I can feel that it was pretty suffocating with all sorts of do's and don't. You can't do this, you can't do that, and there was that constant reminder- "You are a Muslim, you should act like one."

So, yeah, my childhood was not something that I am really proud of. There were all sorts of religious restraints around my neck and that actually affected my relationship with my family members. But, I should say I was still a believer back then; only there was a slight discomfort in me with the practicing form of Islam. I admit that I had a rather troubled childhood but I didn't turn into a rebel just yet.

<b>FP: What caused your second thought and your ultimate abandoning of Islam?</b>

HS: Well, when I was around 13 or 14, I developed a great interest in creative writing, especially in poetry and I started to spend a lot of time reading books and writing poetry. I remember borrowing up to ten books at a time and reading them in a row. History, Science, Philosophy, Religion, Literature name it, all sorts of books. It was a fascinating time I can tell you that. I guess I was mentally a bit matured than my actual age, and I really cherish that part of my life as a period of illumination.

I think books taught me to think and judge things rationally, to escape from the world of prejudice and irrational beliefs. Books were my true liberator, it's the best companion I ever had. But, it wasn't always fun. My family didn't take it lightly as they were noticing some change in me and also my teachers at school. In fact it was the teachers who gave me all sorts of trouble. Unfortunately, most of my teachers were very orthodox Muslims and they didn't like my writings. They even banned my writings from the school magazine which really upset me given that I was probably the only student who could write creative things. And they were constantly reminding me that Islam doesn't approve poetry, music, painting, mixing with non-Muslims or reading texts of other religion and it really confused me.

There was only one way to find out: by reading Quran and Hadith in my mother tongue. I read the Quran over and over again and couldn't believe what I was reading. I started to mark the questionable verses and wrote comments beside them. I wondered, are these versus full of hate being spread and preached everyday in all corners of my town? I was completely dumbstruck. Initially, I thought it was the translation that was to be blamed. But I collected many different translations of the Quran and very reputed Islamic scholars translated some of them. You can say I was really shocked and I spent almost two years of my year 9 and 10 searching for answers.

At year 10, my first book of poems was published and by year 11, I was convinced that Islam itself was a very violent belief. By reading Quran or any other Islamic text in your mother tongue, there can be two effects on you: you could either turn into a violent, brainwashed Muslim ready to eliminate anything that opposes you, or you could abandon Islam altogether and become a free man. I choose the former path and at a very young age.

<b>FP: Did you face the threat of violence for leaving Islam? Are you still in danger today?</b>

HS: Well, leaving Islam was not an instant decision; it was rather a gradual process. I think by the time I reached 12, I consciously abandoned Islam altogether. And some of my closest friends knew about my views on Islam. I think some of them were really shocked. So, leaving Islam was a private matter at the beginning, I didn't share it with lot of people initially.

Obviously there was the fear of making a majority of Muslims upset. So, what I did was, I started to question a lot to spread my message. I learned it from the life of Socrates, that's what he used to do, and it can be very effective sometimes. I started to question Islamic beliefs and traditions in a lot in my writing and that put me in trouble. Although I had some like-minded friends and we used to call ourselves Freethinkers, I made some nasty enemies as well and I was aware that they were watching my every step. But, you know I was young and careless—so I kept going.

Finally, the waiting game was over and they physically attacked me one night- I was very lucky to escape only with some sharp cuts and bruises. After that incident I slowed down a bit, stopped going outside and tried to concentrate on writing at home. I think it was in 2002, when an Islamist organization published a book and declared me a Nastik-Murtad or "Apostate-Infidel". So, I didn't really have to declare leaving Islam publicly, they did the honor for me.

After that I decided to leave the country and in 2003 I came to Australia as a student. And if you are asking whether I am still in danger today, well all I can say is that I never underestimate their reach. It's not just me, anyone who is non-Muslim, or a born-Muslim who doesn't care about Islam much -- anyone who is different from them is in danger today and it's the sad reality.

<b>FP: What are your thoughts on Arab imperialism and Islamic colonialism? And how does a non-Arab convert's mind work in this context?</b>

HS: What always struck me the most was that Islam is another form of Arab colonialism in disguise. In South-east Asia you will see people constantly cry about the British Colonialism and how they are still a victim of it. However, no one ever talks about the Arab colonialism which is very active in every single non-Arab Muslim country. Islam is in its origin an Arab religion, and it is not a religion of conscience, private belief or spirituality; it is very political and imperial. Its holy places are in Arab lands, its sacred language is Arabic, and its historical figures are all native Arab. So what happens to a non-Arab convert's mind is very interesting.

A convert starts to dislike his own culture as non-Islamic and he becomes fascinated by the Arab influence and wants to be a part of the Arab story; ironically, he starts to praise the Arab Warrior who conquered his land. And to do that the first thing he does is to turn away from everything that is ethnically his and he lives in a world of fundamentalist fantasy to purify his non-Islamic culture.

You can see this neurosis and nihilism in the mindset of converts and you can say it is an incurable mental disease which has been affecting them and disturbing the societies for thousands of years. Arab colonialism is both political and cultural and I think it is the longest surviving form of colonialism. You see it is now a fashion to blame European Imperialism and colonialism, west and Israel in general - for every ill in this planet; Muslims are never ashamed to join this blame game. But, when it comes to Arab imperialism or Islamic colonialism, Muslims feel proud and they admire the warriors who once came from the Arab world and conquered their forefathers' land.

This way, Islamic colonialism and Arab imperialism together have conquered and destroyed many advanced and ancient civilizations and brought catastrophic changes in the cultures of the conquered lands. You can say Arabs were the most successful imperialists of all time, because the faithful converts love to be conquered by the legendary "Holy Warriors" of the " Holy land " – it is some sort of salvation for the converts.

<b>FP: Your interpretation of Islam's holy war?</b>

HS: Islam has always been associated with political expansion and that's where Jihad or holy war comes into affect. Quran and Hadith repeatedly say that nothing is greater, so far as goodness goes, than Jihad in the name of Allah. Some apologists will try to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, Jihad is allegorical, and it does not mean violence etc. But the bloody history of Islam tells us a very different story. And the Quran is actually supposed to be taken literally. Muhammad repeatedly said that the Quran is not poetry or allegory; it is the clear voice of Allah himself so that everyone can understand and take it seriously; it is actually blasphemous even to think the Quran as an allegory.

In Hadith, the collection of traditions, Muhammad asked his followers to stop any un-Islamic practice by force many times. As a religion, Islam has a long tradition of deep rooted hatred towards unbelievers. In the Quran, Allah repeatedly commanded Muslims to engage in Holy war and promised unlimited reward in the afterlife if one becomes a martyr in the war for the glory of Allah.

If you ask a Turkish Sufi Dervish who does that beautiful swirling dance, you won't get the literal picture of Islam. You will rather get a pleasant humanitarian view of the Mystic Sufi philosophy. But, unfortunately, Mainstream Islam considers Sufis heretics and they were regularly persecuted by orthodox Muslims throughout history.

To find out the true meaning of Jihad, you have to look at the life of Muhammad, his companions and the later rulers and thinkers of Islam. You will get an extremely violent picture. Even Muhammad's immediate successors used the term Jihad to refer to the conquest of new territory, so I don't see much scope for misunderstanding here.

No matter what apologists try to tell you about the meaning of Jihad, to most Muslims it simply means Expansion of Allah's Kingdom in the command of Allah himself. If they die in the pursuit they are a martyr or Sahid, someone who is guaranteed by Allah to go to heaven straightway without facing the trial in the judgment day.

Islamic scholars like Taqi al din ibn Taymiyyah, Mohammad ibn abdul Wahhab, Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Mawdudi, Hasan al Turabi have a lot to answer for in this matter. Modern Jihadists frequently cite these scholars as their source of inspiration. They argued that Muslims are in a cosmic battle against the force of darkness. These forces of darkness should not be tolerated, and although Allah is ultimately responsible for the destruction of darkness, Muslims are required to fight it. That's why as of today no famous Muslim cleric or Muslim country condemned terrorism. You see, almost everything of the western way of life contradicts Islamic belief - the West automatically becomes the target, hence, Islamic scholars divided the whole world into two different spheres: Islamic World or Land of Peace and Un-Islamic World or Land of warfare.

<b>FP: So Islamic terrorists are not misinterpreting Islam?</b>

HS: No, terrorists are not misinterpreting Islam; in fact they are interpreting Islam very correctly. Theologically, it is a Muslim's holy duty to fight until the whole world turns to one Allah because there can not be any other God. Allah is pretty autocratic among the Gods and he doesn't like to co-exist with any other deity. It sounds funny but its true; how many Muslim countries practice democracy? Liberalism, individual privacy and freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of belief - all of this and any other component of modernity you can think of directly contradicts Islamic belief.

No matter what apologists say, "Islam" and "freedom" are two opposite words with opposite meanings. You see, unlike Christianity and Buddhism Islam is not a personal religion; Islam is very practical, social, highly political, and unspiritual and its goal is to win the world empire. Islam penetrates even very personal aspects of human life and dictates. Islamic law or Sharia is considered divine legislation and it dictates every single aspects of human life, from using toothpicks to how to perform sex; from slaughtering animals to what verse you should recite when you are in a toilet etc. Anything you can think of.

<b>FP: What are your views on Muhammad and his worshippers?</b>

HS: To me, Muhammad is undoubtedly one of the most influential characters of human history in the sense that billions of Muslims are still ready to die for him, and it is unique given the extent of his influence. However, one of Muhammad's few likable characteristics was that he never claimed himself to be perfect although billions of Muslims think so today.

I think Muhammad was always aware of his human shortcomings and he did everything to ensure that he is not worshipped instead of God. But, to Muslims Muhammad is sinless, the most perfect and greatest man who ever lived in this planet, and he is even the greatest of all prophets. Every Muslim worships Muhammad, knowingly or unknowingly and reacts with unprecedented violence if he is defamed by a cartoonist or a novelists or anyone in that matter.

However, if you follow Muhammad biography recorded by famous Muslim scholars such as Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Al tabari you will find many incidences of Muhammad being far from a perfect, sinless man. His cruelty towards Jews, Meccan Pagans and his rivals is well recorded by Muslim historians. He massacred three entire Jewish tribes - Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayaza and Banu Qaynuqa; killed the prince of Khaibar and made his wife captive to his tent: there are numerous examples; you just have to read the Muslim biographers in any translation you wish.

Apologists of Islam will try to justify these actions with there hollow logics; but if you are a prophet you should have a better moral outlook than the average human. Muhammad married 12 or 13 times -- which contradicts his own preaching of a maximum four marriages, but what I find most disturbing is, Muhammad married his closest friend Abubakkar's 6 year old daughter Ayesha. Now if you do that in a modern civilized world, you will be disgraced as a pedophile and spend the rest of your life in prison.

In another disturbing incident, Muhammad was attracted to his adopted son's wife Zayanab and later even married her. As a leader, he failed to announce his successor which led to the bloody Shia-Sunni division in Islam and you see the second, third and fourth Caliphs of Islam all were assassinated as a result of this power struggle. These are just a few of the incidents of a very eventful life of a very influential man. But, as far as I am concerned, Muhammad was no saint. No doubt he is extremely influential, but I don't see a perfect-sinless man in him as Muslims try to idolize.

<b>FP: Let's talk a bit more about Islam as a totalitarian belief system – as you discussed earlier.</b>

HS: As I said earlier, Islam is in a cosmic battle against the un-Islamic world. I think - apart from the mystical Sufi sects, who are mostly branded as heretics by mainstream Muslims - the rest of the Islamic world and its belief systems are undoubtedly totalitarian in nature.

You see, followers of no other religion try to create international associations of nation-states that are based on religion. Only Muslims do and they call it ummah or followers of Muhammad, very similar with socialists and communist revolutionaries.

In personal label, Islam tries to penetrate every phase of life; the sole purpose of Sharia law is to control religious, social and political life of mankind in all of its aspects. Jihad and Sharia are two ultimate tools of Islam's control mechanism. Muhammad's life reflects the very nature of a totalitarian system. There was no separation of church and state; not just a prophet Muhammad performed as a statesman, lawmaker, judge, community leader and in many other roles.

So, you can clearly see the beginning was totalitarian in nature. Muslims are required to follow the Quran, the Hadith (deeds and words of Muhammad) and the verdict of Islamic scholars in case the answer is not found in the scriptures. Interestingly, while all other law is human and constantly evolving, Sharia is divine and immutable - human intelligence cannot criticize it, it must be accepted without any doubts and questions.

So, you can see a very tightly controlled society here without any hope of individual freedom. Sharia contains all sorts of crazy principles, such as, intolerance towards pagans and Jews, inequality between man and woman, religious, social and financial restrictions for non-Muslims citizens, acceptance of slavery and polygamy, barbaric punishments like chopping hands and feats from opposite sides to pulling out eyes and beheading -- all sorts of things.

These laws were handed down over a thousand year ago and they didn't evolve since then. Clearly Sharia is out of touch and not compatible in our twenty-first century. In the last thousand years we have progressed a lot, but the Islamic law and its worldview is stuck in the medieval desert, for generations Muslims are stuck with it as well and they need rescue. No surprise, there is hardly any intellectual progress in Muslim societies. How can there be progress if they regard the Quran as eternal truth and the final solution for all the problems? Progress requires change, Islam is unchangeable. This is why Islam is not just a religion, it is a totalitarian belief system and Muslims are the first victims of it -- but very few of them realize that.

<b>FP: How about those Muslim reformers who are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world? Is there any hope for their efforts? If they asked you for help, what advice would you give them?</b>

HS: Look, I don't think you can be a Muslim and a reformer at the same time; it's a paradox and contradictory in terms. Islam forbids reformation, and Muslims feel proud boasting that unlike the Bible, the Quran didn't go through different editions and versions; it is pure, holy and untouched.

Muhammad insisted throughout his life that the Quran is the literal word of God - the truth once and for all, that's it. So how can you bring reformation and remain a true Muslim? That's a puzzling contradiction and I think it is misleading too. These reformers will keep telling you that Islam is the religion of peace and real Islam doesn't approve the actions of the Talibans, Islam has nothing to do with Jihadists etc. You will eventually get tired of that. This denial is pathetic, you don't have to go that far to see if real Islam has anything to do with these barbaric acts or not. Just read the Quran, Hadith, Sharia - Islamic texts and they are everywhere. That's why it is so important to permit debate and criticism about Islam across the globe. Honest and sharp intellectual engagement is very crucial to create a democratic and modern nation.

<b>FP: What advice would you advise to those who want to save western civilization? How best can we fight our enemy in the total war?</b>

HS: London , New York , Sydney - all these big cities have one thing in common: most Muslims go there to improve their economic condition - big cities are like beauty queens- used by all and loved by none.

Most Muslims have already made it very clear that they have no intention of being assimilated into the host society; instead they are repeatedly asking to implement Sharia Law in Canada , UK , and Australia -- as if it is up to the host society to change instead.

To a Muslim mind, Islam is a universal religion and he hopes some day the whole of humanity will embrace Islam. So, there is an element of expansion mentality in them, because Islam is not limited to home and personal relationship. To Muslims, Islam is a complete code of life and society must adhere to that code. So, you see, the world view of Islam is very totalitarian and you have to fight it intellectually, not just militarily. It is also a war of ideologies, we must not forget.

Unfortunately, some western societies continue to turn a blind eye when there is a Muslim-on-Muslim violence: such as, teenagers forced by migrant parents to follow Islamic codes. Some western societies are too politically correct to take any action when a freethinker is attacked for his unbelief, scared of losing the popular Muslim vote or political support. I believe that the West must always adhere to its secular principles and take prompt actions when there is violence against women or somebody is forced to follow Islamic codes. This will send a very clear message to Islamists and potential jihadists. <b>There are an increasing number of Islamic schools in western countries, this is another way to brainwash children at a very early age and isolate them from the mainstream society by implying that We are Muslims, they are Christians; we are different. They eat pig, we don't; we are different, by forcing girls to wear hijab sends a clear message: we are sacred, they are not, and they are whorelike.</b>

So, it is very dangerous to turn a blind eye in such incidences in the name of promoting multiculturalism. Respect for other cultures, other values is important and a crucial component of secularism and democracy; but, if these other values are here to destroy our own civilization and modernity - then we have fight them vigorously- with reason, argument, criticism, legal and military means if it turns into violence- so that our values of civilization are protected.

Religious belief is fine; but the practices, literal submission to scriptures; religious institutions should not be tolerated. By saying that, a Muslim should have absolute freedom to his personal religion; but if he jumps up and demands the death penalty of a writer or preaches hatred in a community he should be disciplined accordingly by law.

As I said, the West must adhere to its secular principle and defend its democratic right and freedom at all costs and politicians should stop being too politically correct and they should be unapologetic when it comes to defending the core values of civilization.

However, we should remember it is not necessarily a battle between the west and Islam -- as some like to portray it to fulfill there own agenda. As I said before, Jihadists divide the whole world into two spheres - Islamic world and un-Islamic world. I won't do that. To me, it is the ultimate battle between those who value freedom, peace and humanity and those who do not, and we must triumph at all cost for the sake of our own existence.

<b>FP: Hossain Salahuddin, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. Thank you for your bravery and your fight for freedom and truth.</b>

HS: It's an honor. Thanks.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz's Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev's Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Harvard tries women-only gym hours to appease Islamists</b>

BOSTON - In a test of Harvard's famed open-mindedness, the university has banned men from one of its gyms for a few hours a week to accommodate Muslim women who say it offends their sense of modesty to exercise in front of the opposite sex.

The policy is already unpopular with many on campus, including some women who consider it sexist.

<b>"I think that it's incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that's supposed to be for everyone</b>," said student Lucy Caldwell, who also wrote a column in The Harvard Crimson newspaper critical of the new hours.

Student Ola Aljawhary, who is Muslim and works out elsewhere on campus but is not one of the women who requested the change, rejected that argument.

<b>"The majority should be willing to compromise," she said. "I think that's just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others."</b> {Only non-muslims should compromise and not muslims. Strange logic}

The trial policy went into effect Feb. 4, about a month after a group of six Muslim women, with the support of the Harvard College Women's Center, asked the university for the special hours, spokesman Robert Mitchell said.

"We get special requests from religious groups all the time and we try to honor them whenever possible," he said, noting that the school has <b>designated spaces</b> for Muslim and <b>Hindu students to pray</b>. {Never heard this before. Is this true?}

<b>No men are allowed in the gym between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Mondays, and between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Even the staff during those times is all women.</b>

The special hours allow the Muslim women, who adhere to traditional dress codes by covering their hair and most of their skin while in public, to dress more appropriately for exercising, said Susan Marine, director of the women's center.

"It's a pretty big breach of their moral and religious code for a man to see them with their hair uncovered and it's just not possible for them to be in a mixed environment," she said.

When student Kareem Shuman showed up to work out at the gym on Monday, he was turned away but didn't mind.

"Knowing it was requested by women of my faith — it's very understandable to me," said Shuman, 21, who figured he'd just come back later for his workout.

Other men find the new hours inconvenient. Nick Wells, a junior who wrote an opinion piece in the Crimson criticizing the policy, suggested setting aside one room for women.

"It's not that I am opposed to the idea of helping people in religious groups or women in general, but I just think Harvard is not being fair to people like me who live (near the gym)," Wells said in an interview.

The policy only applies to one gym, a facility mainly used for intramurals. Because of its location at the edge of campus, it is the university's least used gym, Mitchell said.

The women-only hours are of minimal inconvenience because they are just six out of the 70 hours a week the gym is open, Marine said.

"Harvard has a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure our students can stay healthy," she said.

<b>An Associated Press reporter who went to the gym Monday did not see any Muslim women entering.</b>  <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->  Efforts to reach some of the women who requested the policy through the Women's Center were unsuccessful.

The policy will be reviewed at the end of the semester, Mitchell said.

Kent Blumenthal, executive director of the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, which has 660 member colleges and universities nationwide, said he could not think of any other institution with a similar policy.

"It seems in some ways contrary to the purpose of campus recreational programs, which is all about access," he said.

Harvard's policy is no different from commercial gyms that cater partially or even exclusively to women, said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"The Muslim bashers portray it as the world coming to end, but if women have a couple hours a week to work out in private, I don't see it as a major issue," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When muslims women are not using the facilities then why reserve the gym for muslim women and inconvinence other people who may want to use the gym at that time.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)